Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/B movie/archive1

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

The article was kept 08:44, 23 March 2007.

B movie

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Messages left at Filmmaking, Films, Jayzel68, DCGeist, Quadzilla99, and Mikker. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B movie was promoted FA on January 9. There were complaints on the article talk page[1]—and the talk page of WP:FAR[2] —that the article had grown dramatically after it garnered support for featured article status. On the article talk page, and at WP:FAR talk, editors who had previously supported the article's candidacy indicated they would no longer support.

Consensus was developed on the talk page at WP:FAR that the article would have a month to address the issues; alarmingly, it appears that there have been no changes.[3] The article's current size is 84KB readable prose, making it likely the longest FA on record.

Serious concerns about Fair Use images have also been raised, and should be viewed in light of recent communication from the Wikimedia Foundation Board. At one point, I recall someone mentioning it had 17 Fair Use images; I haven't counted.

The article size significantly passes guidelines at WP:LENGTH. Reliability of sources should also be evaluated, as IMDb shows up in the references. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • We need to move the entire history section to a subpage entitled History of B movies or History of the B movie. Then, we need to consolidate the history section by half. I also agree that, consequently, there should only be one fair use image per section (and since a couple sections may be merged after consolidation, that may mean only 5-6 FU for the page). Alternatively, we could review the sources first before doing the consolidation, so that we can get that out of the way and focus on the main issue. As for the prose, it's quite good, and it should only be given a brushup without encorachment on the writing style (a skill I'm trying to hone). — Deckiller 17:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the article being completely broken up into four pieces, or will the original (parent) article remain? In other words, if the original article is completely carved up, which article retains featured status, or did you plan to re-submit all four? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I see B movie remaining the main article, its retention of feature status subject, of course, to the quality of its contraction and this review. The four new articles should serve their purpose—allowing B movie to go more to summary style—in something close to their current state. I wouldn't anticipate an effort (on my part, at least) to try to raise them to FA status any time soon.—DCGeist 18:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a great start. Summary style will definitely be easier now. — Deckiller 18:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is the B movie a purely United States phenomenon? I wouldn't have thought so until reading this article. If it is, I'd suggest a very different approach to images in this article. Most, but not all, trailers of movies released before 1964 are in the public domain, as they were published without a copyright notice and did not have their copyright renewed. Since they were typically published before the movie, they did not enjoy derivative work protection and needed to be copyrighted independently. It's true that we haven't been great at tracking this kind of media down, because it is difficult to disprove that the copyright was never renewed, but see commons:Category:North by Northwest (1959 film) for one example. Unless I am missing something, such screenshots would be better than film posters for showing the reader this style of film. Frankly, I'm not clear on what the purpose of the film posters is, since this isn't an article on pop poster art.
If I am missing something, and we need the posters, some of them need reducing in size slightly. I've tagged two, there may be more. We need to delete Image:Emergo.jpg if we can't find proper copyright information about it. Right now we're republishing a photographer's work completely uncredited under some apparantly made-up claim that it was part of a press kit. It's a great image, but we probably can't use it. Jkelly 18:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Excellent suggestion. I'll start looking into the trailer screenshot posssibilities. As for the posters, the B movie phenomenon is as much a matter of commerce and marketing as it is of cinematic aesthetics--in fact, one of the points the posters attempt to make in relation to the text is the ways that B movies are marketed and treated by the industry generally demonstrate much more conformity than the actual films themselves. Posters also tend to be an effective way of indicating the target audiences for the films in question.
As for the question about it being a purely U.S. phenomenon. No, it's not, at least in the industrial sense--there have been systematic distinctions between high- and low-cost production lines in other major film industries during different periods, such as Japan's and France's. One essential point to begin with: As a term, B movie for many decades appears to have been almost universally used to describe the products of the American film industry or foreign films in comparison to Hollywood products--this is true, at least, of the British, French, and Japanese crticism and historiography with which I'm familiar. (I'm happy to expand on the issue a bit later).—DCGeist 19:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up You're obviously right about the need to properly credit Image:Emergo.jpg, though shouldn't we start by assuming good faith on the part of the uploader, Philbertgray, rather than charging him with "some apparantly made-up claim"? I've followed up your message to him with a more personal one--let's see if he can provide the sourcing for it.—DCGeist 18:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For one, Blood Simple is not mentioned in the article (fortunately), for another this film (the image of it) is like a fly in the milk here. A mention in the article that the film although low-budget went beyond B-movie standards would be by far more precise. Can't a more representative B-movie image be given in its place? People that haven't seen the film might get a very wrong impression from the image's description. Hoverfish Talk 00:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well I'm not really sure what the above editor's views on Blood Simple are (Why is it fortunate that it isn't mentioned in the text?), my one concern, now that size is on it's way to being addressed, is/are the captions as they seem to violate criteria 3 of WP:WIAFA. There it's states that images should have "succinct captions". However as Geist is the only one working on the article, perhaps the main focus should first be on trimming the size. Also, and more significantly, as I've voted on or observed many of Geist's FAC's most people do not seem to be bothered by the length of the captions.[4][5][6] Even though that is an official policy the Wikipedia, since most every voter on his FAC's like them it would seem to be a case of WP:Ignore all rules, however if the majority here feel they should be shortened then they'll have to be. Quadzilla99 01:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further Comment My previous comments still stand, however in order to be thorough I looked throught the entire article. A few sentences that could use adjustment:
"Then it was off to the nabes and the hinterland, the subsequent-run market where the double feature prevailed." I don't really want to learn slang to read an article, if these terms are essential lingo please link them to Wiktionary or explain them. If they are essential and are linked I might learn something interesting. If not just delete them.
Comment I removed the above lingo. Quadzilla99 07:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Down in Poverty Row, low budgets led to less palliative fare." Same as above, although this is not slang. Actually maybe it's intellectual slang.
"With television airing many classic Westerns as well as producing its own original Western series, the cinematic market for B oaters in particular was drying up." Same as above wikify and show that it's essential or remove it. My apologies if this appeared before in the article and was wikilinked.
"Unpretentious pictures with simple, familiar plots and reliable shock effects—that is, B pictures in both production values and aesthetic spirit if not by the older, more precise industrial definition—were ideally suited for auto-based film viewing, with all its attendant distractions." Run-on sentence.
"Motorpsycho (1965) had it all: Director Russ Meyer's unsurpassed eye for the finer points of female anatomy. The biker theme ("MURDERcycles") that would prove its popularity in historic fashion just a few years down the road. And that money-in-the-bank word in the title: psycho." Sounds like original research or a personal summary, please cite. Even if all this is something that is so obvious to anyone who knows film that people who flunked out of film school after one semester know it, it sounds like it needs sources.
"Does it have to be a bit schlocky to be a B? Writer-director-star-producer-composer-etc. Shane Carruth made the schlock-free sci-fi Primer (2004) for $7,000. It lasts just 77 minutes—the first time around..." That caption is a little too coy for it's own good.
"In a similar way, the popularity of Internet sites such as YouTube have opened up entirely new avenues for the presentation of low-budget motion pictures, which may, like television, become largely institutionalized as a parallel production and exhibition model with the cinema, or may lead to a redefinition of the concept of cinema itself." Sounds strongly like original research, remember even if something is true you need a source. A statement like that begs for one, also may violate WP:CRYSTAL as it's speculative.

Although that may look bad I looked through the entire article and those are the only sentences I objected to.

A good idea of how to whittle this thing down might be to take a previous version and cut and paste it to a sandbox and see what it needs. In another tab you could have the current version and you could compare the two. Such as something from around December 30 when it was around 60kb. Trying to remove individual sentences would be tedious, while taking a larval version of the current product and looking to see what are glaring omissions might be easier. You could work on it in the sandbox and release it when it's fully developed.

The last thing I want to add is just a suggestion for improving the article and not anything of real importance. This article would really be great if some time in the distant future when the current issues subside, a lot of the names in the article could have their own article. When you mention and describe people like Bryan Foy, Sol Wurtzel, and Sam Briskin among others it would be very interesting to read their backgounds and would help to put things in better perspective. Quadzilla99 06:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment there are image issues too, the article is not an article on B movie poster art; please add information on who the image copyright belongs to, fair use images are not supposed to be used for decoration, please remove fair use posters that do are not discussed in the text.--Peta 03:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Each image and its caption illustrates, complements, and expands on issues discussed in the primary text. Please follow the FAR rules and actually read the article in order to avoid pontificating again so ignorantly. Also, in the future, please make an effort to write in English or whatever your native language is, rather than the above doggerel. Last and not least, you want to "remove fair use posters that do are not discussed in the text"? Fine. Whatever "do are not" means, you just go ahead and "do are" it yourself. This is Wikipedia. You can "do are" whatever you please. But don't expect anyone to give a crap about your orders.—DCGeist 09:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, completely needless DCG. Comment on the material, not the person. And, per Jesus Christ: let he (or she) who is without typos, cast the first criticism. Marskell 21:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Complete overreaction due to real-world trauma. Took a couple days off, but one comment too late. Sorry for the over-the-top incivility. But hey, I've never made a typo in my lief.—DCGeist 03:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I didn't have a problem with the length myself, technical limitations have been mooted, attention spans seem to be growing (look how many millions of people have sat through 3 and 4 hour movies in the past 5 years), and, really, who's forcing anyone to read through the article in one sitting? If you want to take a break and come back later, do it. It's being broken up though, so that's fine, I suppose. Regarding the images, I read that a fair ratio for FAs was 1 image for every 250 words, though I can't find any documentation, but this article meets that easily. They add significantly to the article by illustrating the various types of B movies and demonstrating some of the character and marketing of each. Besides which, Wikipedia is never going to get sued for the use 17 fair use images, which will inevitably be used in articles for those films too, in one article before the use of tens of thousands of them across the entire project (which I can't image it will get sued for either). The captions I like, I think they maintain the balancing act of encyclopedic and humourous writing very well, they're informative and add charm. I can't condone cutting them. On a personal note, the comments directed at DCGeist, specifically starting on the articles talk page, are unwarranted. Of course an article is going to change during it's nomination period, that's expected. And it should be taken for granted that any reviewer may not agree with all of those changes and should keep an eye on it, or, at the very least, give it a quick go over before the final tally is counted. I don't say this to stir up an old discussion but to point out that he's been harangued and nickel and dimed a bit here. Anyway, at full length it's much better than the other feature articles I've read but I'll hold off on voting till the splitting is finished, of course. Doctor Sunshine talk 01:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Nickeled and dimed"? Perhaps you feel there should be absolutely no standards for FAs whatsoever. I suppose we can just name every article a featured article and save a lot of time and effort. --Jayzel 16:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's now how I feel. Doctor Sunshine talk 22:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should realign your feelings with the FAC criteria that are being discussed here. + Ceoil 23:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one who's brought up "feelings". I've stated my opinion. Have I not made myself clear? Doctor Sunshine talk 02:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Status? Has work stalled? Prose size still 68KB; overall 104KB. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Status update An additional substantive edit has been made since Sandy's query, reflected in figures below.
  • Overall size: Cut from 127 KB to 103 KB—19% cut
  • Prose size: Cut from 84 KB to 67 KB—20% cut
  • Fair-use images: Cut from 17 to 11—35% cut. Specific image identified as problematic by Jkelly among those eliminated. Remaining: lede image; one image per each decade/section; one image for "Associated terms" section.
  • Image captions: Trimmed. Still longer than common on Wikipedia, but average length substantially shorter than before.
  • IMDb.com citations: Cut from five to two (in two cases, superior sources were identified; in one case, the relevant text was cut). The two remaining citations are both for business data (production cost and rental income). Superior sources are still being sought (the two films in question are The Texas Chain Saw Massacre and Halloween) zero (in four cases, superior sources were identified; in one case, the relevant text was cut). Note that a third remaining reference to IMDb.com in the notes points out an error on that site.
  • Literary style: Comments on literary style tended to be very favorable, but Quadzilla99 found issue with a few sentences. Qz99 linked one of these for clarity and edited another; I edited two more.
Comment The major issue obviously remains length. Jayzel, who was the first to raise serious concerns about the article's length, sought a reduction to approximately 70 KB of prose. While that target has been met, Sandy made the case that something in the range of 40 KB of prose should be the target (see here). I've cut as deeply as I can without the loss of any vital information. In my view, each element that remains contributes to the whole story—in its specific significance, in exemplifying broader industrial and aesthetic trends, and in carrying forward the parallel themes of continuity and transformation in the B movie. In terms of how length bears on its FA status, the article's prose size is now 17% shorter than that of Ketuanan Melayu, which passed FAC on September 3, 2006, and was the Main Page's featured article on November 4 (for pertinent data, see here).
On the other hand, I recognize the article remains quite long and am not opposed to further cuts on principle. (And, as has been noted, unlike Ketuanan Melayu, B movie became much longer toward the end of its FAC process.) However, I'd like to see a consensus develop about what, if any, particular elements should be dropped at this point. Early on, for instance, it was suggested that the entire Associated terms section be cut, substituting links to new articles on those terms via See also. Subsequent commentators, however, found much of the information useful within the context of the main article. (I've trimmed the C movie subsection a bit and the Z movie subsection a bit more, creating a separate article for that as well.) In an ideal scenario, I'd organize a panel consisting of an undergrad film student, a movie-loving layperson, and a professional cinema historian. If this fantasy trio agreed that anything was inessential, it could then easily be cut. In lieu of that, it would be helpful to hear from as many voices as possible. In other words, this is a Request for comment.—DCGeist 01:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before I reread the article and offer my thoughts, I would like to address the photo captions. I still think they are unnecessarily POV. They read more like a critic's guide than an encyclopedia. The most POV statements are highlighted in bold:

Vincent Price headlines a cast of golden oldies

Pals of the Saddle (1938) lasts just 55 minutes, perfectly average for a Three Mesquiteers adventure.

Motorpsycho (1965) had it all: Director Russ Meyer's unsurpassed eye for the finer points of female anatomy. The biker theme ("MURDERcycles") that would soon prove its popularity in historic fashion. And that money-in-the-bank title word: psycho.

Piranha (1978), directed by Joe Dante and written by John Sayles for Corman's New World Pictures, is a triple threat: a thrilling creature feature; an outrageous parody of Jaws; and an environmentalist cautionary tale.

In the tradition of Mann and Alton, brothers Joel and Ethan Coen brought high style back to the B noir in 1984.

Does it have to be a bit schlocky to be a B? Writer-director-star-producer-composer-etc. Shane Carruth made the schlock-free sci-fi Primer (2004) for $7,000.

Plan 9 from Outer Space (1959) has become the most famous Z movie of all time—and not for being unexpectedly good. --Jayzel 19:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Captions edited.—DCGeist 04:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just printed out the article and will be reviewing it tomight and tomorrow. Will have my thoughts up Saturday night. Regards, --Jayzel 03:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Superior sources are still being sought (the two films in question are The Texas Chain Saw Massacre and Halloween). Note that a third reference to IMDb.com in the notes points out an error on that site. Try Dmoon1, who got the first 3 Halloween films all to FA, to see if he has a superior source for the Halloween sentence you've referred to DCGeist. He might be able to help :). LuciferMorgan 01:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Superior sources identified and cited for both Halloween and Texas Chain Saw Massacre business data.—DCGeist 06:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice work so far. I know it's hard when everyone is making suggestions and criticisms and no one is actually helping you with the article. Keep it up and try to visualize the final product and the end of this whole process. One or two more things, in the caption for the Primer photo it says, "It lasts just 77 minutes—the first time around..." I'm not sure what this means, is it some kind of reference to the movie? Also is there a certain numeric goal in terms of size you're going for? Perhaps it's time to discuss this as I feel it's close to being of acceptable length. I've noticed that there hasn't been a number that anyone has referred to as a cut-off point. I realize a number is a rather crude way to judge an article but numbers have been frequently mentioned here. I'd say another 10 more or so kbs less would be acceptable. That would put it at around 85-90 kbs. While it would be on the longer range of acceptable it would be reasonable to me. Quadzilla99 00:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Thanks. Caption (with, yes, reference to movie) edited. I can't say I have a numeric goal in mind. Since my status update above, I've further tightened the language throughout and trimmed a couple elements whose thematic import was adequately conveyed elsewhere, knocking off a few more KB. The pruning process of the past two weeks has improved the article, and I'm personally happy with where it is now. As noted, I await the suggestions of Jayzel and whoever else may have recommendations for specific cuts. Their input will be determinative as to the article's ultimate size.—DCGeist 14:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC. The article still has 67 KB prose; it received Support votes at FAC when it was well below that and within WP:LENGTH guidelines. The editor who grew the article to this size should be the best person to decide how to reduce it back to the size that received support at FAC; I don't think other editors should necessarily need to dictate where or how the summaries should be done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Sandy, your exclusive emphasis on size and FA guidelines completely ignores the more important issue: content. As I have done my best to make clear, I believe the content of the article as it stands now best serves Wikipedia's readers. There are those, like Doctor Sunshine, who appear to agree. However, as I have repeatedly expressed, I'm not adamant about my view--those who believe the article can better serve Wikipedia's readers by losing some of its current content are asked to suggest what should be cut. Or do you believe I should ignore what Jayzel and anyone else might have to recommend on the matter?
"Just do it" your edit summary reads. Sounds so easy. Very well, then. If what matters most to you is size, you just do it. Cut it down to the size that pleases you, however you see fit. Be bold, as they say, and satisfy your own demands.—DCGeist 16:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up Given your FARC nomination and latest edit summary, let's take a look at the two editors who, as you pointed out when nominating B movie for FAR, "had previously supported the article's candidacy, [but] indicated they would no longer support" due to length. One, Jayzel, stated early on that a prose size cut to 70 KB would be acceptable. That target has been met, but is clearly not acceptable to you. The other, Quadzilla99, has stated that a cut of 10 KB from the current length (67 KB prose, according to your assessment) would be acceptable. Would that be acceptable to you, Sandy? In my effort to reduce the article to a generally acceptable size, I solicited suggestions for cuts. Jayzel has indicated forthcoming comment on the article's content. Are you willing to wait for Jayzel's input and my response to it before voting on the FARC, Sandy?—DCGeist 17:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for the delay. I've read it and while it is probably possible to trim another 5-10% off the article if you completely removed the graphs on Z movie etc and removed detailed descriptions of various films I have no problem supporting the article keeping it's FA status as it currently stands. One thing I did notice that I wanted to mention was the use of A movie and B movie and B's and 'B'. It gets confusing at times. I think you should probably italicize these throughout the article and shouldn't the plural of B be Bs and not B's? Did that make sense? :) --Jayzel 00:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify, when I refer to detailed descriptions of films I am referring to production costs, distributor, length in minutes, director, and plot points. Some of the examples given in the article are pertinent, but many are extraneous and unneeded. Regards, --Jayzel 01:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Great. On the two main points: (1) There's not a single book I've seen published in the last twenty years that italicizes "A movie" or "B movie" or "B" etc. However, I did notice myself, in my last run-through, a few spots in particular where the use of "A" for "A movie" could well be confusing. I'll go through again and clean those up (and look for where "B" might be confusing as well). (2) I'm with you on pluralizing: "Bs" to me is more consistent, logical style then "B's." I went with the latter because of my impression that that's what most people favored. Since you've spoken out in support of the non-apostrophe style, I'll change it to that within the next day unless someone presents an argument against it.
As for the more general point, I too had been wondering if all the financial figures were helpful historically, or if they might make the article a little too stat-y. You've suggested the latter, and I'm happy to cut a few of those out to make it more reader-friendly unless someone has a strong objection. Best, Dan.—DCGeist 09:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up A number of edits have now been made, pursuant to Jayzel's comments above:
  • Clarity of A/B usage: My impression is that confusion is most likely when a sentence begins with "A" in the film-terminology sense; I've eliminated all such usages.
  • Plural style: Done. All "B's" changed to "Bs."
  • Film details: I eliminated approximately fifteen data points of the sort described by Jayzel, hopefully providing better flow.
  • Z movie subsection: Heavily pruned. Now down to two compact grafs.
—DCGeist 22:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concern are focus (4) and images (3). Marskell 14:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I know a lot of work has gone into this one, but I didn't see definite consensus to close it, so I'm moving it down. Note that length itself is not a criteria concern; for short ones we might worry about comprehensiveness, and for long ones about focus. Marskell 14:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marskell, can you clarify the statement above? WP:WIAFA, number 4, specifically references Wikipedia:Summary style, which in turn specifically refers to the 30KB limit on readable prose (and other issues of WP:LENGTH), so I'm not sure why you state it is not a criteria concern. As long as the article remains above 50KB readable prose, I will be a Strong Remove per WIAFA, number 4. Also, can someone ping Jkelly or Peta for another look at Fair Use—I have stinky internet access right now (which makes me really appreciate our size guidelines). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Keep: While article length has been cut by almost 25% since Jayzel first brought it to the attention of the FAR community, it remains substantially longer than general guidelines suggest. However, after pruning it is now far from "the longest FA on record"; the FAR process and related editing appears to have brought the article to a place meeting the needs of those expressing an interest in the subject matter.

Unaccountably, 1c has just been raised for the first time in this entire process--the article is, in fact, (a) rigorously cited throughout and (b) based on superior sourcing that corrects many errors and misleading generalizations in other encyclopedic histories. The criteria for citation are very clear: Quotations and statements "challenged or likely to be challenged." All those have been cited, as well as information that would be difficult for an interested reader to verify, even after looking over the sources already provided (to be precise, the article fully details 61 different print-published sources—the basis for 113 of its 128 endnotes).

Image count has been reduced by more than a third from when FAR began--all movies represented in images are discussed in order to illustrate, complement, and expand on issues discussed in the primary text. I believe all specific comments on content and focus have been addressed and that the article has landed at the necessary level of detail. The article's length and multivalent coverage need to be contextualized by the ambiguities of the term and the fact that this is the only serious survey of the B movie from its origins in the 1920s to the present day, either online or off.—DCGeist 19:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Impossible to respond productively to this redundant nonspecific statement of opinion. Wikipedians new to the process wondering whether to honor or deprecate this basis for objection are asked to be mindful of the fact that the article went through 19 days of review without a single question being raised about citation density; editors are also requested to critically examine both (a) the article and (b) the objector's history of contributions to the FAR/FARC process. Any specific requests for additional citation according to the criteria will be responded to swiftly and happily.—DCGeist 23:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep — I don't see any major issues, to be honest. Focus has been fixes significantly, and I believe all questaionable issues have been attributed/cited. If I'm not mistaken, images still need sources, which should be a quick linking. Nice work as usual! — Deckiller 00:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Good occasion for a rundown of some image info. Of the 11 remaining images: 2 were uploaded by other users (Primer, Plan 9); 1 I scanned for the article from my own collection of cinematic material (100 Proof); 2 come from my large hard-drive holdings of film noir–related ephemera—some personally scanned or screen-captured, some personally downloaded, some sent to me by friends or associates aware of my interest in the field...generative histories all long-forgotten (Raw Deal, Blood Simple); 6 I downloaded for the express purpose of inclusion in the article. Since our rondelet with Deathrocker (speaking directly to Deckiller here), I have provided sources for all 11 in the form of certain or presumptive copyright holders, per Wikipedia:Image_use_policy: "Source: The copyright holder of the image or URL of the web page the image came from" (emphasis added).
Following up on the suggestion Jkelly made during FAR to employ P.D. screenshots from trailers—"trailers of movies released before 1964 are in the public domain, as they were published without a copyright notice and did not have their copyright renewed. Since they were typically published before the movie, they did not enjoy derivative work protection and needed to be copyrighted independently"—I still think it's a worthwhile idea. I haven't been able to pursue it yet, because my li'l iBook's DVD player is broken, but here are the prospects in that area:
  • Not applicable for the two illustrated movies from the 1920s/1930s: very few B movies from this period had trailers; virtually none survive
  • Not preferable in P.D. terms for the five illustrated movies from the 1960s (1965)/1970s/1980s/1990s/2000s: trailers copyrighted
  • lede image (The Raven): poster image strongly preferred, to emphasize importance of marketing to B movie phenomenon and to establish representative B-marketing style; poster also helps explicate the notion of the so-called B actor, showing three of the most famous of that ilk (the three never appear together in a single shot in the movie itself)
  • 1940s image (Raw Deal): poster image provisionally preferred, to emphasize divide articulated in caption: "Such movies were routinely marketed as pure sensationalism, but many also possessed great visual beauty"; if a really strong noir-styled image appears in a trailer (assuming a trailer is available), on the order of the lede image in the film noir article (comparable images do appear in the full-length Raw Deal), that might be just as edifying
  • 1950s image (Rocketship X-M): P.D. screenshot (if available) preferred; the movie itself is crucial, but a screenshot would probably be just as edifying as the poster image
  • Z movie image (Plan 9): P.D. screenshot (if available) preferred; again, illustrating movie itself crucial, screenshot just as edifying as poster in this case
I've requested DVDs of the above two films from my local library system (library doesn't have Raw Deal; Amazon-available edition has no indication that trailer is included). It looks like they'll get to me starting in about a month--around the time I can temporarily part with my laptop for servicing. That's clearly past the end of this FARC process, but I'll stay on mission.—DCGeist 08:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the scope of the topic the size is appropriate. Unless all of the longer FAs are going to be reassessed, which they should not be (I dream of a day when all articles are not judged by the number of their KB but by the content of their subsections), I can't see any reason to take it to FARC. The number of fair use pictures is appropriate. I think what Marskell may have been referring to with his focus comment was the many comparisons with A-level budgets and serials and related or overlapping terms. These comparisons are necessary, however, in defining a term that's always been a bit ambiguous and has transformed over the years and does frequently overlap other terms to varying degrees. The article's concise and comprehensive and I commend DCGeist on his work and his cuts, it's still a great read. Doctor Sunshine talk 01:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Regarding criterion 4, focus, I agree that the article is very long and might benefit from being split, but I do not see that as sufficient a reason to remove it from FA status. In terms of 1c, citations, I personally think the article is a bit over-cited. I am not a fan of individual page citations -- they're of little use if someone is working from a different edition of the book that may have different page numbers. I also find inline citations to be distracting if they're frequently used in the middle of a paragraph -- I would prefer that a source simply be mentioned once at the end of the paragraph or section. But neither does that mean that I want someone to go in and prune references out of the article -- I'm simply concerned that the expected "citation density" for an FA is getting out of hand. As for criterion 3, images, again I did not see anything that would make me seriously question FA status. This, though a bit long, is an excellent article. --Elonka 01:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I had a long comment written, but then my browser crashed (Grrrr). To make things short, it's long, but tightly and very well-written and not overly-comprehensive. The pics, if need be later, can be removed and should not effect the article's FA status. Regards, --Jayzel 02:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Editors are also requested to critically examine both (a) the article and (b) the objector's history of contributions to the FAR/FARC process." Can you clarify what you meant by statement b? I haven't disputed that some great work thus far has been done to the article, but I don't understand what you mean by statement b? Clarify here please? Thanks. LuciferMorgan 01:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply I confess I don't know enough to understand this issue with cite tags, but, as I wrote above, "Any specific requests for additional citation according to the criteria will be responded to swiftly and happily." Please feel fee to copy and paste here any uncited quotations and any uncited statements challenged or likely to be challenged, per the citation criteria. In addition, please copy and paste here any uncited statements of information that strike you as particularly obscure. (Do try to stick as close to the criteria as possible however, mindful that just as you are the sole editor to find the article currently undercited, an equal number of editors [Elonka] find the article overcited.) I will be happy, as I said, to provide citations.—DCGeist 09:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Referring to a user's edit history is to me, in almost all cases, an argumentum ad hominem fallacy and should be avoided or ignored. Their statement is either good or bad on it's own merits, the user's history is irrelevant to the correctness of it. As for the article status I'm having a hard time deciding one way or the other, it's still slightly too long for me but a lot of good work has been done so I'm probably going to abstain from iving a position. Quadzilla99 04:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply Of course, when the basis for objection is phrased as specific, testable statements, it is easy to determine whether they are relevant and productive on their own merits. However, when the basis for objection is expressed merely as general statements of opinion, there is little basis for judging the credibility and value of such statements beyond the editor's history of opining. Remember, "whole chunks of prose still remain uncited" in no way addresses the citation criteria covered by 1c. We are thus led to ask, Has the editor established credibility to simply declare an article undercited without specific reference to the actual criteria or not? We determine such credibility or lack thereof by examining the editor's history of similar opinions. As soon as the basis for objection achieves specificity based on a careful reading of the article and the judicious application of Wikipedia's well-established citation policy, then the objector's history becomes irrelevant--as, we agree, it always would be in an ideal FAR/FARC process.—DCGeist 09:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree with you as per WP:CITE that technically only things which are likely to be objected to have to be cited (inline citaitons are not even mentioned as required there). That should have been your point. Being a fan of logic, it's logically irrelevant to the correctness of a statement the r's particular history or views on the subject. So it really shouldn't have been raised if a person states an opinion, just label it as such and state that it represents no guideline or ask for a specific guideline that represents their view. Quadzilla99 09:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your logical analysis is indubitably correct. In sum, I believe Lucifer's expressions of his basis for objection have so far been unproductive; my suggestion, as you have analyzed, was equally unproductive. I hope my reply to Lucifer above helps turn things in a more productive direction. As an aside, in re the implications of the word "technically," it should be evident to anyone reading the article that it cites many, many statements above and beyond the quotation/challenge criteria (as Elonka opined, too many).—DCGeist 09:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • I can understand what your saying DCGeist; instead of making a general comment, you wish for me to pick out specific statements. Thanks for turning things into a more productive direction, which is much appreciated. If you wish, you can put a sandbox somewhere and I'll add where I personally feel cites should be added - this is up to you though really DCGeist, because this seems to be heading for a keep anyway and I seem to be in the minority as you've pointed out. If you didn't even respond to what I said, I think this'll still pass considering the votes. Should you go for a sandbox, and if I end up adding tags to things you feel do not need citation though, just ignore them really as the article seems as if it's gonna pass anyway (as I keep saying *sorry!*) - I don't really want another debate on the 1. c. criterion with another editor to be honest, as I've had a lot lately, and really those debates haven't been productive. Anyway, thanks once again. LuciferMorgan 10:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC) technically[reply]
I tend to cite for one or two sentences. There are two sorts of cases, often overlapping, where I'll cite for much or all of a paragraph: (a) where the expression of the paragraph synthesizes material from multiple cited sources and/or (b) where a series of sentences calling for citation are all unquestionably verifiable via a cite at the end of the series. Mind you, what I don't believe in is the ad hoc guideline that every paragraph requires a citation; if the material is of the sort commonly known to virtually all concerned professionals and easily verifiable by any interested layman given appropriate examples and/or reference to any mainstream consideration of the topic, as applicable, a paragraph may not require a citation. Admittedly, this is rare--at present, in this article of 51 post-lede paragraphs, only one contains no citation.
P.S. The cite request for blind bidding you entered may clarify our difference in philosophies. It seems clear to me that the quotation/challenge requirement doesn't apply here. By my broader standards, I still don't believe it needs a citation, as the historical practice is common knowledge among those in the field and discussed in many reference works surveying the era; nor is the term's meaning particularly complex or obscure. On the other hand, giving a reference for readers to find out more about this outdated practice seems fine to me. I'll look through my sources to see if any is particularly edifying.—DCGeist 21:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's fair enough, we're all entitled to our own beliefs / opinions - I've asked for a citation as I've never heard of the practice, and thought it needed citation. To be honest, looking at the article, Sandy's size concern is one that more editors are likely to raise, so whether you wish to concentrate on that is up to you - if you feel it isn't an issue, you of course have the right to feel that too. LuciferMorgan 02:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up Reference (with new source) added per request.—DCGeist 02:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A month of review, size still not even remotely within guidelines, I'm still a Remove. To address some of the statements above:
    • Unless all of the longer FAs are going to be reassessed, which they should not be ... I am only aware of three ultra-long FAs (out of a total today of 1289 featured articles); Ketuanan Melayu at 81KB of readable prose, Campaign history of the Roman military at 74KB of readable prose, and B movie at 65KB of prose. I opposed each of them because they significantly surpass WP:LENGTH guidelines, as specifically addressed in requirement #4 of WP:WIAFA.
    • I also fought back the ELAC (Extra Long Article Committee—now defunct) because they were going after articles that were one third to one fourth the size of these articles; they were advocating breaking up articles with 20 to 30KB of readable prose, and less than 50KB overall size. These three articles significantly surpass those limits; I hope we don't see a resurgence of the Extra Long Article police if we continue passing FAs that surpass guidelines by such extreme amounts.
    • I also disagree that WP:LENGTH is not an WP:WIAFA concern because it is only a guideline; most of WP:WIAFA is based on only guidelines, so there is no reason for this one to be any less important than the others. The only policy requirements at WP:WIAFA are 1c and 1d. 1a, 1b, and 1e are not even guidelines, all of 2 is guideline-based, as is 4 (size), so it should not be singled out as any less important than any other requirement.
    • I am often the victim (when I travel) of a miserably-slow dialup connection, so I'm aware of the hardship we place on our readers with ultra-long articles (according to the statistics put foward by the Extra Long article police, that amounts to 50% of our readership, although I didn't personally verify their sources). It is rude to put up articles that can't be easily accessed by 50% of our readership (assuming the ELAC stats were correct). It reminds me of the architect I hired and came to hate; he refused to design a smaller house for me because "he doesn't build small houses". Well, gee, how easy is it to build a monster with no limitations, never have to make choices, never have to optimize your work, especially on someone else's dime (dialup)? Much easier than building something livable and reasonable, which forces the architect to actually design (gasp).

Just as I am on record as opposing the other two aforementioned articles, I will continue to oppose articles that are ULTRA long, because they are a disservice to our readers, go against guidelines, most often do reflect a lack of focus, and may regenerate the interest of the extra long article police. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; not a journal, not a book. Twenty-six printed pages is not an encylopedic entry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response Different perspectives on significance of size and efforts to deal with it are well-detailed above. Many limitations have been imposed, choices made, optimization sought, and a design applied that those interested in the topic find viable; all readers remain welcome to make constructive suggestions for optimizing the article—Sandy's first specific proposal for reducing the article's length, if it ever comes, will be greeted with especial appreciation. There is a particular question here about the claim (also made in edit summary) that the article runs to twenty-six printed pages. When I print out B movie as I would any other Wikipedia article, the main text—including images—plus See also comes to almost precisely nine pages. With notes, biblio, and external links, the total is thirteen, half Sandy's assessment.—DCGeist 19:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So does mine, when I allow my printer software to automatically reduce it to less than 100% font size, which I can't read :-) When printing at 100% (normal) font size, it's 26 pages. Again, it's not my business to tell you where to cut the article you grew; the article received all of its support votes at FAC when it was within size guidelines; you grew it from there. Clearly, a number of reviewers thought the article was fine when it was within guidelines. At any rate, there is no need to argue this here; your article has support to be one of the 3/1289 (.2%) of the longest FAs on Wiki. I don't have a problem accepting consensus, but I will stay on record as being against the outrageous trend of 26-page "encyclopedia" entries, lest we see more of them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I just realized it was a software/font size issue. My setup tells me it's scaling at 100%, but in comparison with other printouts it's automatically reducing--still within my range of readability (for a few more years...)—DCGeist 19:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep; I'm aware of this issue because of a run-in I recently had with the TSA while trying to get through airport security with a magnifying glass (another reason I'm behind on reading articles I took with me on my last trip). My printer was automatically reducing; I can't read that even with my eyeglasses on. I 'spose the 20-somethings still reign on Wiki :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the suggestion. In a few months, perhaps. I'd like to do some more work on the series articles, and before that, I'm taking a break from thinking about B movies for while and going to enjoy a few.—DCGeist 07:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Peter, those who are actually interested in the topic seem to agree that it does maintain focus and that its length is appropriate to the multivalent nature of the subject matter. By all means, if you believe there is a pardox here and that the article can not somehow be both (a) its current length and (b) properly focused, please back up that contention by pointing out where it loses focus and explaining how. Then we can see if anyone else agrees. If any such argument is made and agreement on it reached, I'm happy to make more cuts.—DCGeist 00:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Easily said, but not properly done. The article as it stands now is superior in comprehensiveness, accuracy, source quality, emphasis, and--yes--focus to where it stood at the point you wish to revert to. We do our best work by improving on the superior state of the article. As always, any specific suggestions for improving the quality of the present article, including further judicious trims, will be greeted happily.—DCGeist 00:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No you wont, DC. You'll just cherry pick your way through those complaints as well or simply belittle anyone who doesn't agree that "superior" (a very popular adjective in this debate, I might add) means "huge". You're forgetting that encyclopedic articles are supposed to be written primarily with the general readership in mind, not overly patient fellow aficionados.
Peter Isotalo 09:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty close to a personal attack, Peter. Aside from that: (a) What's your evidence that I "cherry pick"? If you look above, I respond very specifically to all specific suggestions. No, I don't edit in response to every single one, but I do to most, and when I don't, I explain exactly why and invite further discussion. Since we entered FARC, there has been one specific suggestion--from LuciferMorgan. We hardly started out seeing eye to eye when the disagreement was general, but in fact, I not only went to the trouble of creating a sandbox version of the article for him to work on, I edited directly pursuant to his suggestion. (b) How did my encouragement of "specific suggestions" get turned into your attack on my supposed reaction to "complaints"? (c) Now that you've vented about me, predicted my readiness to "belittle," and analyzed what I've "forgotten," how about finally describing where you believe the article loses focus--as you initially claimed it must--and/or making some specific suggestions for cuts. Thanks.—DCGeist 16:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bait, squirm and split hairs to your heart's content, DC. Cherry picking the mere mention of cherry picking pretty much sums the weight of your arguments up.
Now, length is not an issue that can be picked apart. Period. It can be discussed and perhaps negotiated, but not ignored almost completely, as you've done in this case. No one can claim to be both focused and overly comprehensive at the same time. I might be inclined to change my mind if I was offered championship-level rhetorics combined with Pulitzer Prize-class prose, and above all, an extremely broad topic which would be relevant to just about anyone. Like history, physics or food. What we're talking about here is a mere sub-sub-sub-topic of American pop culture. That alone is reason enough to not bloat the main article to pretentious proportions and then staunchly defend it all with equally pretentious argumentation.
Peter Isotalo 22:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blistering rhetoric, my dear boy! I've cut the article almost 25% since FAR began, while you... Well, we're still waiting for one constructive suggestion from you. One. Just one. Here, I've got a novel idea for you: try reading the article. Oh, not the whole awful, bloated thing. Just a teensy, weensy little bit. Then simply state what you'd like to see cut. The thing is so thoroughly inflated and pretentious, that shouldn't be hard at all. Cherry pick at will. Like my friend Sandy likes to say, Go for it!!—DCGeist 05:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to divert the focus to the nitty-gritty details when there's 98k of material consisting almost entirely of the history of low budget films in the US is not reasonable. There are just too many examples, quotes, side-tracks, mini-anecdotes, etc to know where to start. When I've worked on my own major projects, Swedish language and medieval cuisine, each with a history that spans about a millennium, I've made sure to keep them around 50k, or at the very least under 60. And you're telling me that twice that amount about a subject which only covers a tiny portion of one aspect of 20th century human culture should be considered a concise summary? There's a serious lack of proportionality involved in such an assumption.
Peter Isotalo 13:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You accusing Peter of personal attack? That's amusing. If that is your threshhold for personal attack, how would you characterize this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're amused, I'm amused. But, um, linking to the Talk page of a third party in a dispute concerning a different article now two months past? How are we helping the B movie FARC here, Sandy? Peter's diatribe against me came pretty much out of nowhere (though it was presaged by the not-exactly-on-topic comment about editors and cake). I described it as "pretty close to a personal attack." And then, in the end, I tried to steer the discussion back to what he might have to contribute to the article's improvement. Despite your interesting proposal above, working on B movie doesn't have to become World War II. I have faith we can all evolve.—DCGeist 18:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you're working on evolving; it was just a pot-kettle reminder not to begin accusing and wikilawyering on FAR as you have on FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, you should recognize that I didn't "begin" anything with Peter. I responded to this purely ad hominem comment: "No you wont, DC. You'll just cherry pick your way through those complaints as well or simply belittle anyone who doesn't agree that 'superior" (a very popular adjective in this debate, I might add) means 'huge'." PS: In your analogy, are you the pot or the kettle or both?—DCGeist 22:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confident you can figure out simple pot-kettle analogies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which brings up the WP:NOT issue of books being written on Wikipedia. Wiki is not a free webspace provider. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even in a perfect world where everyone was equal, I'd still own the film rights and be working on the sequel. Everyday I write the book.—DCGeist 16:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm not quite getting is that the sub-articles have been created, but the page has hardly been compressed at all. I'm looking at paras in the subs that, excepting the smallest of tweaks, remain identical to those in the main. Marskell 08:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of it. Some of the paragraphs in the orginal (i.e., just-before-FAR) version were already as compressed as seemed useful; others have been trimmed more or less deeply--compare the coverage of 1970s TV movies or the examples and detailing of 1980s inflation of B move styles. The series articles were also created not only to allow compression in the main article (which, as long as it was, did aim for encyclopedic summary from the beginning), but also, longer-range, to allow for more comprehensive coverage of each particular period. I don't belive its fair to say the page has "hardly been compressed at all"--in fact, a considerable amount of prose has been cut, as can be verified by a simple KB comparison.—DCGeist 18:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Cake and eat it too was appropriate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, that's your fifth comment in the last two days--not a single one of which has had anything to do with improving the article. See below for an example from Marskell of how to make a constructive suggestion complete with example. You've been able to be helpful in the past (as with your pointing out the IMDb.com references, which have been replaced), and your opinion about the article overall was reiterated at length last week. I really don't understand what's prompted this string of snipes in the last 50-some hours.—DCGeist 18:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is over-use of examples. Three or four pictures will be cited for a point, where only one would do. And the focus is compromised when examples are described at too great length. For instance:
"House of Usher typifies the continuing ambiguities of B picture classification. It was clearly an A film by the standards of both director and studio, with the longest shooting schedule and biggest budget Corman had ever enjoyed. But it is generally seen as a B movie—the schedule was still a mere fifteen days, the budget just $200,000, one-tenth the industry average.[68] B movie aficionado John Reid reports once asking a neighborhood theater manager to define "B picture." The response: "Any movie that runs less than 80 minutes."[69] House of Usher's running time is close, 85 minutes. And despite its high status in studio terms, it was not screened alone, but in tandem with a crime melodrama asking the eternal question Why Must I Die?[70]" -->
"House of Usher typifies the continuing ambiguities of B picture classification. It was clearly an A film by the standards of both director and studio, with the longest shooting schedule and biggest budget Corman had ever enjoyed. But it is generally seen as a B movie—the schedule was still a mere fifteen days, the budget just $200,000, one-tenth the industry average, and its 85 minute running was only slightly more than the expectation for B movies.[68]" B movie aficionado John Reid reports once asking a neighborhood theater manager to define "B picture." The response: "Any movie that runs less than 80 minutes."[69] House of Usher's running time is close, 85 minutes. And despite its high status in studio terms, it was not screened alone, but in tandem with a crime melodrama asking the eternal question Why Must I Die?[70] Marskell 09:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great. That's very helpful. I can do that, and see where else that kind of cut makes sense.—DCGeist 18:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see you did it. Looks good.—DCGeist 22:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DCG, I've just now responded on your talk. Let's work out some way to workshop this, keeping info intact but reducing over-specific info. Marskell 22:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Responding on your talk.—DCGeist 22:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep. One of the best articles written on Wikipedia. I was really disappointed that it was even brought to FAR, and more so to see it get FARC'd. In any event, I think it is close enough to established guidelines for FAs to pass without further pruning. Regarding the reference to WP:NOT above: Let's not forget that the first section of that policy says there are no practical limits to the amount of content we include in an article. This is one of the ugliest FARCs I have read. It's a shame, since it's about such a brilliant article. I wouldn't blame DCGeist if he never wrote another word on Wikipedia after this is over. Jeffpw 23:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff, you cite one part of NOT on this issue, but elide the remainder: "There is a feasible limit for individual article sizes that depends on page download size for our dial-up and microbrowser readers and readability considerations for everybody (seeWikipedia:Article size)." So, on to the Article size guideline:
  • "> 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided up.
  • > 60 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)."
So it's not as simple as saying "this is a great article, no need to worry about size." Our policies and guidelines strongly suggest a length cap that we need to be sensitive to. Further, given that the last few posts with DCG have been amiable, I find your tone a little unhelpful—no one's talking about never writing another word on Wikipedia.
I'm going to post some suggestions to this talk, as the review itself is so massive. Marskell 07:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff also misquotes the first part of WP:NOT. It doesn't say "there are no practical limits to the amount of content we include in an article"; it says "there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page," followed by the portion Marskell quotes, "There is a feasible limit for individual article sizes ... " SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response With possibly one exception, all of the external links were introduced by other users. When I was doing primary work on the article a couple months back, I pruned out eight links that were clearly inappropriate/not up to standard. Would you mind going through those that remain and flagging or simply cutting those that you perceive aren't up to snuff? PS: If you're up for it and would prefer to flag, you could do it here: User:DCGeist/B movie cite sandbox.—DCGeist 17:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the heat of debating minutiae and criteria interpretation I almost forgot a rather problematic aspect of the article. Has anyone voting to keep actually considered that the article is extremely narrow in scope? It's still just basically a chronology of low-budget films in the United States (and a lot of sidetracks about movie production); there's more information about US studio budgeting issues than any aspect of low-budget films outside of North America. One could probably use large chunks of the article to make a pretty decent expansion of the history section of cinema of the United States without having the focus shifting all that much towards B-movies. Has no one actually considered the problematic aspects of this obvious lack of width? Or are we just all assuming that low budget films either don't exist or just don't matter outside of North America? To me it seems as if this would actually be a rather glaring lack of comprehensiveness, e.i.criterium 1b (comprehensiveness) and to some extent even 1d (neutrality). Peter Isotalo 09:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Indeed, low-budget commerical cinema is by no means a purely U.S. phenomenon. However, the concept of B movie essentially is. As a term, B movie for many decades appears to have been almost universally used to describe the products of the American film industry or, later, foreign films in comparison to Hollywood products--this is true, at least, of the U.S., British, French, and Japanese criticism and historiography with which I'm familiar. The aesthetic and commercial influence of the American B movie (viz. film noir, splatter) is unparalleled by the lower-end products of any other national industry; the sole exception is the Italian film industry from the late 1950s through the mid-1980s. In addition, in no other major film industry was relatively low-budget filmmaking so long as integral to the business structure or essential to the profits of the industrial mainstream as in the U.S. The B movie phenomenon (really two major subphenomena--the cut-rate second feature and the legitimate-studio exploitation film) is thus properly considered as a U.S. phenomenon. See, for example, Spanish Wikipedia's completely independent article Clase B (cine).[7]. While its coverage is more restricted temporally than ours, note that it clearly identifies the B movie as a Hollywood phenomenon: "El cine Clase B (también llamado Serie B), apareció en los tiempos del sistema de estudios de Hollywood, entre los años 1930 y 1960." The analogous French Wikipedia stub, Série B, also treats it as a Hollywood phenomenon.[8]. The analogous German article, B-Movie, while opening with a brief, generalized defintion, devotes over 90% of its coverage to Hollywood.[9]. The Italian Wikipedia is the one major exception that gives coverage of the national industry in its B-movie article. Reference to other Wikipedia articles, of course, proves nothing in itself--this survey, however, does accord with my understanding of the field. I would certainly be happy to add a couple paragraphs in our article concerning the Italian film industry if the consensus calls for it.
In response to your specific question, Sandy, while spaghetti Westerns are now often referred to as "B movies", the categorization is not terribly sound historically. Many of the best-known spaghetti Westerns--in particular, the work of Sergio Leone--were by no means low-budget or perceived as low-quality within the context of the Italian film industry. The use of "B movie" (or "B-movie," as they prefer) in the Italian context tends to embrace more unambiguously "exploitation"-themed movies and what we might call "trash films."
It would certainly be desirable to have an article on, say, Low-budget commercial cinema that would cover the field globally, with proper contextualization of what it means in each country and with a summary of the present article's material largely representing the U.S. portion of that new article. Considerations of relatively low-budget cinema would also ideally appear in the articles covering each individual nation's cinema.—DCGeist 17:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"If the consensus calls for it..." Ugh... Why even bother? The article is going to be the property of the primary author until someone pries his clammy, desperate fingers from it. The normal standards of FAs don't obviously don't apply as soon as it's about some pop culture topic perceived as an utterly unique Hollywood monopoloy. Let's just forget about this sordid affair, button down and wait for those 200k tanks on "world history" come rolling over the FAC hills. Just don't try telling them that their articles don't have enough encyclopedic focus...
Peter Isotalo 20:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Clammy, desperate fingers," eh? It's been so long since we held hands, and yet you still remember. I'm...touched.—DCGeist 20:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, absolutely claw his "clammy, desperate fingers" from the article, and just revert back to this. Much simpler, less waste of reviewers time. Ceoil 21:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously. The article is being WP:OWNed. It's considered perfectly acceptable to triple the size of the article during the course of an FAC, but not to respect editors who are concerned about article focus. When Spaghetti Westerns are mentioned, they're not considered part of the cultural canon because of Sergio Leone, but Blood Simple and Primer are no problem at all. What's really aggravating is the idea that all information about non-American low budget films has to be quarantined under the cover of the amazingly convoluted "low-budget commercial cinema" while . Or at least until the Consensus Committee has had it's say...
This all smacks of more or less overt systemic bias.
Peter Isotalo 09:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quel quarantine, mon frere? "Considerations of relatively low-budget cinema would also ideally appear in the articles covering each individual nation's cinema." And, anyway, we know you wouldn't want all this info you care so deeply about relegated to an article covering what you so piquantly described as "a mere sub-sub-sub-topic of American pop culture." Get to work, friend—perhaps you'd like to start with Cinema of Sweden. Show us what you got!—DCGeist 00:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one arguing in favor of keep the article narrow in scope while at the same time boasting how absolutely superior the article is in terms of comprehensiveness. And if I complained about systemic bias, I was obviously wrong. The silly hint about Swedish film makes it rather obvious; we seem to have already crossed over to mild nationalism.
Peter Isotalo 00:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I've been wondering what you have against cara Italia.—DCGeist 01:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that it still could use a little more trimming, I'm going to remain neutral in respect to the work done so far. Basically I feel very ambivalent and can't register a vote either way. I will step in to say that the accusations of WP:OWN are out of place. Most people have voted keep thus far, therefore the current consensus is that the length is acceptable. Please keep that in mind when making accusations. Quadzilla99 17:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: I think there's some mutual baiting going on above and I don't know if we're well served keeping this going longer. I'm going to close this as keep, because as of now there is no explicit length criterion at WP:WIAFA and enough people have said keep in this review. Perhaps there should be a length criterion? Should the strong suggestions of guidelines be written into the FA criteria? Maybe. I think we need to start a thread on this on one of the FA pages. Marskell 08:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/B_movie/archive1&oldid=1138476545"