Wikipedia:Peer review/First Motion Picture Unit/archive1

First Motion Picture Unit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am going to eventualy nominate it for FA or FL. I'd like any general advice you have to offer, and specific advice on the following:

Would this make a better FA or FL candidate?
Should the filmography be split out into its own list?
Many of the film entries are redlinks, and may never have articles due to lack of coverage. What do you think about adding a film summary in the Notes column? It may be too small--perhaps add a second dedicated row like you see with episode lists? Skip the summary?
Should I make the video thumbs smaller?

Finally I know the sources need work--date, publisher, etc.--so you can dispense with formatting comments on sources. Thanks, – Lionel ^(talk) 23:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Wouldn't look entirely out of place at FLC but there's a heap of prose so it could be FAC too. So that's not very helpful is it?!
I don't think the filmography should be split off, you'd end up repeating a lot of the main prose in a standalone list, I think it makes a good comprehensive article as is.
Summaries are good if you can add them.
Video thumb sizes are fine for me, they're not forced beyond the normal thumb size and I think that's best.
6 dab links, Distinguished Flying Cross, Craig Stevens, Frank Thomas, Robert Morgan, Paramount and Arthur Kennedy.

Done– Lionel ^(talk) 03:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check the actors link to the pages you'd expect, e.g. by Vince Evans, you probably don't mean a footballer born 11 years after he appeared in this film.

Done– Lionel ^(talk) 03:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not written in any MOS that I've ever found, but I would expect to see references in numerical order.
"1,110 men[2]" all men?

According to this source. Moreover, I don't recall any of the sources mentioning that women served in the unit.– Lionel ^(talk) 03:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"and The Last Bomb–all of which " not keen on the style of that unspaced en-dash in this sentence.
Note, for most if not all modern FACs, there's usually no requirement to provide any refs in the lead because anything there should be expanded upon (and referenced) in the main body of the article.
How did you select the "selected" Warner Bros. films?

I added every film I could reliably attribute to FMPU.– Lionel ^(talk) 03:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need for notes column to be sortable.

Done– Lionel ^(talk) 03:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Participants, if you wish the col to be sortable, ought to sort by surname.
Not keen at all on a category in the see also links. At least pipelink it so it doesn't display across a cross-wikispace link.

Done – Lionel ^(talk) 03:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid double hyphens in the prose, stick with spaced en-dashes for instance.

Think I gotr all of them. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully a start for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Comment I think this should eventually be two articles - one on the unit itself (potential FA) and one as a filmography (potential FL). If you want an example of a fairly listy FA, see Waterfalls in Ricketts Glen State Park, but I see this as more like an article on a famous director or actor/actress, and then a filmography (list) of that person's films. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comments

First of all, this is a pretty interesting subject, so thanks for spending time on it. Some thoughts and suggestions:

Answering your questions

As written, this is definitely an article more than it is a list. I'd keep it that way.
Answered below, but the bottom line is that it's basically your choice.
I like the notes in the right column, but only to describe the purpose of the film or important details related to the unit, so what you're doing already is fine. Avoid plot details.
The size of the video thumbnails seems fine.

Sections

Lede

I would remove the comma after World War II and strike the phrase "was unique in that it was". I don't think you have to explicitly say it was unique, especially if it was the first of its kind.
As someone who has a keen interest in film, "created" isn't quite as specific as "produced". I would use the latter.
You could add some kind of description for "400 films", such as "400 narrative, training, and informational short features and feature-length films".
Were the films released theatrically in the United States, or internationally? If released elsewhere, any idea on whether the international response was as positive as the domestic?
I'd strike "famous" before "actors". They're definitely famous, but there's no reason to reiterate that fact.
Instead of "The unit not only produced training films, but trained combat cameramen." maybe "The unit also produced training films and trained combat cameramen."
Isn't serving with "distinction" a specific military designation? I'm not very sure, and I think it would be a good idea to wikilink it to the appropriate definition if one exists.
The final sentence feels a little out of place. Is the documentary where the unit got its name?

Background

"December 1941" is fine, no "of".
"Army" needs to be "United States Army" or the more general "army".
No comma needed in "March 1942"
Winning Your Wings should be wikilinked the first time, not the second.
To change the passive sentence to active and eliminate some personal description, I'd change "Winning Your Wings was directed by Owen Crump, and featured James Stewart as a dashing pilot." to "Owen Crump directed Winning Your Wings, which starred James Stewart as a pilot."
I'd remove (1) and (2) from dual purpose of the unit.
"Burbank, CA" to "Burbank, California"
Be sure to remain consistent with putting "the" in front of "FMPU".

Life at Fort Ranch

I'm very iffy on the "well[-]known film professionals of the day" claim. Clark Gable was definitely at the top of the charts, but William Holden didn't hit the big time until Sunset Boulevard in 1950. The statement is also American-centric, as there were quite a few well-known actors elsewhere (American cinema was not nearly as dominant of the marketplace then as it is today.)
Was Bare really that established by the time he joined the unit? I have no problem with his inclusion in the article and he was clearly qualified, but it seems as though he had done mostly short promotional films at the time. The same goes for Sturges, as it doesn't appear he directed his first mainstream film until 1946.
"Cavalry Reserve" and "Captain" in the Reagan sentence don't need to be capitalized, unless referring to "Captain Ronald Reagan", nor does "Personnel Officer" or "Adjutant". See WP:JOBTITLES.
Regarding the distraction comment, I was a little puzzled, so I looked at your source. It seems as though it was distracting for trainees in training videos. That might need some clarification, as my assumption was that it was distracting general audiences.
The phrase "ever made it overseas" implies that being sent abroad (presumably for combat) is "making it", thus I would change it to "were ever sent outside the country" or "were sent into combat", whichever is more accurate.
"but it wasn’t the basic-basic" is a good quote (I smirked) but it's a little vague. Maybe you can find a way to keep the quote but clarify the statement to make it clear they were not conventionally trained.
I could be wrong, because I'm not familiar with military usage, but "barracks" would normally be plural, and would not have "a" before it.
I'll admit I didn't know what "billited" meant. You might want to wikilink that to Billet.
"feature length" to "feature-length"
"The film was very popular" How popular was it? With whom was it popular? Aviators, or their officers? Maybe even the general public? Was it the popularity that led to the production of more films, or was it the film's effectiveness in dealing with the flying errors?
"considered to be the "best educational film" produced during the war." By whom?
Strike "In fact".
Strike "The production was of the highest quality and in recognition" so the sentence begins with "The feature-length..." I would add that it was nominated for best feature-length documentary in 1944.
Strike "utilization".
Perhaps wikilink "gunners" to Air gunner to clarify?
"pitfalls to avoid" can be just "pitfalls". There's no such thing as a pitfall you don't want to avoid.
Strike "to use".
"The Animation department" doesn't need to be capitalized.

Bombing of Japan

Since the unit did not actually bomb Japan themselves, I don't know if the heading title is appropriate. Perhaps "Reconnaissance for bombing of Japan"?
Maybe wikilink Gregory Orr?
Technically, the information would not be "used by B-29 Superfortresses" but rather by their crews.
"The United States in 1944 was readying its forces..." should be "In 1944, the United States readied its forces..."
Using the Template:convert with "eighty foot by sixty foot scale model (1 foot = 1 mile)" might make it easier to manage. "80-by-60-foot (24 m × 18 m) (1 foot:1 mile)"
Names of newspapers, like the New York Sun, are italicized.

Bomb damage in Europe

I'd change the title to something like "European bomb damage survey"
The first sentence could probably read "After the end of World War II in Europe, General Arnold ordered Crump..."
I'd remove "infamous". The fact that they're concentration camps makes them infamous by default.

Combat cameraman training

I have a pretty good feeling that this needs to be a subsection of "Life at Fort Roach" above. It relates directly to training, and doesn't fit in with the chronological narrative you had established up to that point.
"from 20 to 30 men" Perhaps "Between 20 and 30 enlisted men"?
"was due to Fort Roach alumni." to "was filmed by Fort Roach alumni."
"Alumni of the program were "highly praised and much decorated."" needs to have a source for the quotes.
Strike "sprang into action and".
"It was at this time that he" to "He then"
The syntax in the sentence about Keitel is a bit awkward. Maybe try "Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, field marshal of Germany's armed forces, noted the decisive role played by film production units: [blockquote]"

Films

Since this section is a filmography of sorts, I'd recommend changing its name to "Filmography" to be more specific.
I have no problem with video in articles, but the amount of videos here seems stacked and crowded.
I'd probably just include a couple of videos: for Winning Your Wings, which can be embedded next to that section, and for one of the animated videos, to include next to your paragraph of the subject of animation.
The videos are approximately 20 minutes each, which doesn't seem to fit in with the style of an article. If you have the time and know-how, I'd even recommend creating a two or three minute montage of some of the most illustrative scenes from these videos. Such a montage would be appropriate for this section.

Source help

You already know this, but you'll need more sources eventually. I've thrown in a few here and linked to their respective pages on Google Books that discuss the FMPU:

Some positive stuff

These reviews can feel like a bear sometimes, like your hard work isn't appreciated, so I wanted to point out some of the good stuff as well:

There's a lot of really interesting information here, and you do a fine job of illustrating the importance of the unit's accomplishments.
With the exception of the "Combat cameraman training" section mentioned above, this has a very clear, linear structure that's easy to follow.
Separating the filmography was probably a good decision, primarily because people often feel the need to create lengthy inline lists for no other reason than to throw in every name and title they can find for the sake of "completeness". Whether you want to create a separate list is up to you; I'm not very familiar with that process.
With the exception of a few missing commas, the vast majority of the prose is clear and easy to read. This is a fun read, so keep working at it to refine it.

Runfellow (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]