Talk:Tempest and Sunshine

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tempest and Sunshine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

March review

Reviewer: Squeamish Ossifrage (talk · contribs) 15:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Prose: "Mary Jane Holmes'" : As with many things, Wikipedia dodges having a house style preference here. I'll comment that I prefer the Oxford and MLA approach of universally appending 's for possessives, even when the base word ends in a sibilant. Your style may vary. "by a Dr. Lacey" : Can omit a here. Ideally, you'd provide a summary of the plot without the need for a direct quotation, but with just the one source to work from, this may very well be the only option. Noting the film is lost in the plot section is probably redundant. It probably sufficies to introduce the synopsis as "The Moving Picture World's synopsis of the film states:...". The dash near the end of the quote looks like a hyphen; it should be (at your discretion) a spaced en dash or unspaced em dash, as dictated by WP:MOSQUOTE and the principle of adjusting noncomforming typography. The cast section can be tightened up. I think it's safe to credit Rosemond and Heming. As Bowers notes, the "Answer Man" had less than perfect accuracy (although, on the whole, it wasn't terrible). However, I don't think there's any particular reason to doubt these particular attributions. Then, note that the remaining cast credits are unknown (along with any sourced speculation about their identities (as with the Frank H. Crane callout I suggest moving up here from below). Wikipedia has an article on The New York Evening World, styled as The Evening World. You can probably pipe that, or make a redirect at your discretion. As an aside, I'll note that New York Evening World, sans The currently redirects to New York World ... which it did merge with, but that probably should be retargeted at some point; the project's coverage of early 20th-century journalism is poor. "The film director is unknown" : You use functionally the same words for the lack of a firm screenwriter credit. If the sources seem to warrant it, you might consider compressing one or both of these. For example: "The writer of the adapted scenario was likely Lloyd Lonergan." / "The film's director may have been Barry O'Neil." Such constructions still demonstrate a measure of equivocation. I'd move the note about the cameraman being uncredited to the start of discussion about the cameraman. "The role of the cameraman was uncredited in 1910 productions, and Bowers does not attribute..." Although actually, you also need to let the reader know who Bowers is here. I'd call him a "historian", I think. Also, you can link him: Q. David Bowers; when he's not writing about film history, he's one of the world's foremost numismatic experts. No reason to repeat cast information here; speculation on other cast members should follow what is known about the cast, in the cast section. "The continued popularity of the novel would be evidenced by the future productions by other companies of the same subject with Independent Moving Pictures making a two reel version in 1914." : I'd split this up. Make the first sentence introductory, that other companies continued to film this. Then, the next sentence can probably include both the 1914 IMP two-reeler and the 1915 Rialto / Gaumont production (which is a three-reel production, and was apparently actually titled in opposite order, as Sunshine and Tempest; see here, "Film News in Short Reels"). "These records make identifying the stage, vaudeville and different film showings difficult." : Unless a source says this, I would omit it as something akin to original research. On the other hand, retaining "specifically" should be fine. "The work is sometimes omitted in large reference works" : work ... works. Infobox: Thanhouser should be listed under the studio field, as producer is intended for the person filling that role. Convention around here seems to be to spell intertitles as a single word, and to link it from the infobox, but not to link English langauge (as it is considered overlinking). I quibbled with this quite a bit early on, but that outcome seems to be the one that satisfies the most people, all the way through FAC. I'd go ahead and include |based on = {{based on|''Tempest and Sunshine''|[[Mary Jane Holmes]]}} Running times in reels have long been accepted in silent films, so you can also include |runtime = 1 reel References: You need to pick an author formatting style. You've got mostly First Last (Q. David Bowers), but there's a Last, First (Goble, Alan) in there, too. My personal preference is separate author-last and author-first fields (which results in Last, First ordering), but as long as you pick a consistent style, Wikipedia's pretty much tolerant of whatever you want to do. Initially, I was a little nervous about the thanhouser.org site, but as it turns out to be a well-respected academic (best known for his numismatic works, but no slouch on cinema history) publishing material in a nonconventional format, I think there's no reliability issues here. That said, "Thanhouser.org" is not the publisher, but the url. A work field should be added, for Thanhouser Films: An Encyclopedia and History. The publisher field is essentially optional here, but if you wish to include it, the actual publisher is Thanhouser Company Film Preservation. You should cite newspapers differently, though, even if you're accessing them online. {{cite news}} is preferred here. Give the name of the paper as the newspaper field and its location as, predictably enough, location. Standard two-letter state abbreviations are acceptable and preferred. A url field is available for the online link; if it's a subscription-only site, add |subscription=yes. Retrieval dates for print sources merely viewed in an online archive aren't required (and some people at the FA level get cranky about their inclusion). External Links: If you'd like, you can add an External Links section after References, with: *{{IMDb title|id=tt0344436|title=Tempest and Sunshine}} Categories: Category:Films based on American novels None of this is fatal to GA promotion, clearly, but I'll place this on hold for the moment, largely to allow some of the prose issues to be tightened before promotion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC) @Squeamish Ossifrage: How's it look now? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC) @Squeamish Ossifrage: anything missing or can this pass? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC) ChrisGualtieri, unfortunately Squeamish Ossifrage's most recent edit was about three hours before you posted on March 20. Editing gaps in the past have sometimes been months-long; at this point, you may wish to wait a little while longer for SO's return, or may prefer to look around for a new reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC) I think I need a new reviewer. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC) I will prompt this review for a second opinion (aka new reviewer). If no one picks up this review within an appropriate time frame, it might be worth closing the review and re-nomination (starting fresh).--Dom497 (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC) Rather than lose its seniority by nominating fresh, we can put it back into the reviewing pool if no one decides to take on finishing the review via the second opinion option. Also, you can request someone take it over directly at WT:GAN; that might be more likely to attract someone to finish a review. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

June review

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 19:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

• Stable. Only one editor. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• Has an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• There is one image used, which is appropriate. It is a public domain image, and there is an adequate caption. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• Focus. Article is pithy, with no section out of proportion. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Query

• I'm querying the relevance to an article on the Tempest and Sunshine film, about a section mainly about stage adaptations of the Tempest and Sunshine novel. There is a sentence indicating the difficulty of identifying which production was which, which I assume is the rationale for mentioning the productions, but I am querying the need for such detail. "There were several stage and film adaptations of the novel" might serve to summarise the position. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I see no harm in identifying the other productions as Bowers has gone out of the way to mention them himself. Between the stage and film's identical titles it is quite possible to confuse them because such events were not listed - erroneous listing were omitted from this article, but a reader should be aware of the existence of them both. A scholar or researcher, more so. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Prose is fine. Some minor typos I've fixed, but there's a couple of unclear statements in the lead. Not a big issue - the information appears to be there in the Plot section. The lead may need some work anyway, and the sentences can be tidied up then. I've tagged them, so they can be easily identified.SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I will fix them. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• There is a query regarding the source for the image. Can you check that Moving Picture World July 2, 1910 is the correct publication, and if so, state which page the image appears on. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

That is the 1912 one... it seems the link is incorrect so I will fix it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Link is still pointing to the 1910 publication. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Fail

• There is some speculation regarding scriptwriter, director and crew which doesn't appear to cited to any source. Such speculation derived independently from an editors own research is consider original research, which is against policy - see WP:No original research.

The ref at the end of the paragraph is perhaps not sufficient to explain the complexities of the content. Bowers does not cite that which is not credited elsewhere and in specifics, but such mentions in the narrative and footnotes show the employ of two directors in the early days. O'Neil and Carleton being the two. Carleton would leave the company by the summer for Biograph and Thanhouser was releasing films commonly 3-4 weeks after production... Mad Hermit being unique because it was held back to the company was secure. While uncertain (as the text states) O'Neil is a possible candidate. The cameramen are also listed as possibilities because credit does not exist. So its not original research, it is more looking through Bowers writings and listing that which Bowers highlights as candidates. I can expand this for you if you want. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes please. What is needed is for a source to say that Lloyd Lonergan is "most likely" the scriptwriter. If there is no source which says that, then our article cannot say it either. If there is a source which says Lloyd Lonergan was a scriptwriter for Thanhouser at the time the film was made, but the source doesn't say he wrote the film, nor make the suggestion, then it might be fair for our article to say that Lloyd Lonergan was a scriptwriter for Thanhouser at the time the film was made. However, the source must mention both Lloyd Lonergan and Tempest and Sunshine in the same context and with the same implied outcome, otherwise it is WP:SYNTHESIS as shown by Wikipedia:No_original_research/Examples#Original_synthesis. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The source used to cite that "The writer of the adapted scenario is [...] most likely Lloyd Lonergan", says: "Lloyd F. Lonergan probably wrote nearly all the scripts for films released in 1910, but in the absence of specific verification, no such assumptions have been made. Besides, it is known that Gertrude Thanhouser, wife of Edwin, wrote some scripts during this time." It's not appropriate to go from "no such assumptions" to "most likely". SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• There is a statement, used twice, that the Thanhouser production was the first film adaptation, but there appears to be no source given for this. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I note that it "appears" because Alan Goble's work fails to mention this production yet it is a comprehensive listing of the other works - even those which Bowers highlights. I find it appropriate to list its place as the first known adaptation simply because no database or known film predates it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

You need a source. Otherwise it is original research. The example shown here indicates why you cannot rely on your own assumptions or interpretations. The most you could say is that Alan Goble does not list a production that was based on the novel, but even that is making a connection that no other reliable source appears to have made, and we prefer not to do that. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

On hold

Sorry that you've had a problem with the review of this article. These things do happen sometimes as we're all volunteers who sometimes get distracted by real life. However, it can be frustrating when it happens to you! I've run through the article and put some comments up. The GA criteria are open to interpretation, and some reviewers will make judgements one way, while others will make judgements another way, so I am always open to discussion on my interpretations. As it stands I feel the article requires firmer sourcing for several statements made, and some clarification regarding the focus. I also note that the article relies entirely on one source: Q. David Bowers' www.thanhouser.org website. The GA criteria does not get into questions of notability nor does it get into number of reliable sources used, though it does use the plural, and it is expected that a topic will have more than one source and be notable. The topic is certainly verifiable. It appears from Bowers comments, and the contemporary newspaper adverts that a film with that title did exist, but it's not clear that the film meets WP:MOVIE. One of the guidelines is that there should be "Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release." Is there another reliable source which writes about this film? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

These films probably don't meet the Movie specific listing, but I am confident this is under GNG for several reasons: The film is from the early days of narrative cinema and is the subject of an authoritative encyclopedia by a top expert. Bowers compiles primary sources - making the single citation count for many very difficult to obtain sources. Bowers information is incomplete and I've expanded on his listings with modern discoveries when applicable. If the film is discovered it would be desired by the national archives as almost all surviving films from this company are. The film was widely distributed and over a hundred years later these films are of interest to scholars and academics - even if lost. GNG is how ROADS works in a sense, but for practical reasons I don't want each and every page to be a mess unless necessary. I got Documentaries and Minor Subjects of the Thanhouser Film Corporation for the tidbits. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The GNG also expects multiple sources, as explain in Wikipedia:Notability#cite_note-3. However the purpose of a GAN is not to debate the notability of a topic, we have AfD for that, what I am really interested in is if there are other sources on the topic to assist with checking GAN criteria 2. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I assume from your comments and the lack of progress that we are not going to agree on the issues I have raised. I'll wait another 24 hours, and if there still hasn't been progress I'll close the GAN. You have the options then of addressing the issues I have raised and then re-nominating, of ignoring the issues I have raised and re-nominating to find another reviewer who has a different interpretation of the criteria, or of doing something else. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

General comments

The image is in the public domain, yet is not on Commons - is there a reason for that? The image is also quite dark - is there a reason why it hasn't been cleaned up? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Looking again at the image, I note the comment: "Image appears to have been erroneously captioned in publication." On looking at the publication cited, Moving Picture World July 2, 1910, I can't find the image. Which page is it on? And what is the error in the caption? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The error was swapping the caption with The Flag of His Country. This is very clear given each film's synopsis and period. The image hasn't been cleaned up because I lack the skills to do so and the image isn't on commons because they delete things for the dumbest reasons and I can't keep track of them if someone improperly flags it. If someone wants to move it over - be my guest, but I'm not a fan of commons. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Closed as not listed

I think there are problems with this article. I don't think there is sufficient material to establish notability, or to justify a stand alone article. The article is written up mainly from one source. Information presented in the article is not fully supported by the source. Concerns raised in the review, and tagged on the article have not be adequately or appropriately dealt with. This and this are not appropriate fixes as they do not dealt with the concern raised that the statements in the article are assumptions made by the editor which do not appear in the original source. As I wrote above two days ago: The source used to cite that "The writer of the adapted scenario is [...] most likely Lloyd Lonergan", says: "Lloyd F. Lonergan probably wrote nearly all the scripts for films released in 1910, but in the absence of specific verification, no such assumptions have been made. Besides, it is known that Gertrude Thanhouser, wife of Edwin, wrote some scripts during this time." It's not appropriate to go from "no such assumptions" to "most likely".

It was recently agreed that instructions to reviewers should be updated to suggest we look at notability. I note that there are similar articles on Tanhouser films which have been through the GA process. Given my concerns regarding this one, it may be appropriate to bring the series to the attention of the community to look into if these films do meet our inclusion criteria, and if the facts and assumptions made in them can be trusted. My personal feeling is that Tanhouser is a significant subject, and there are a number of sources on the subject to improve the current article - Thanhouser Company - and to bring that up to both GA and FA standard. And that such an article would be very useful. But a series of standalone articles on each of the company's 1,000+ films is not helpful. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Bowers does not provide credit without it being verified, but Bowers also states Lonergan probably wrote nearly all of the scripts 1910. Saying "The writer of the adapted scenario is unknown..." clearly lets the reader know that the writer is not known for certain, but Lonergan wrote 1500 scripts (more than all releases). Gertrude Thanhouser did a lot of executive work and was part of the editing process though many persons at Thanhouser were likely involved in the productions. Bowers source is from 1995 - and more information has been founded and expanded upon, even lost films found and preserved at the National Archives.

I'm not making stand-alones for each page. Documentaries and Minor Subjects of the Thanhouser Film Corporation will probably contain 60-80 films by the end of it. Notability and GNG are different principals and I do not see how Wikipedia is damaged or made worse by having them. Also - The Florida studio will probably get its own article instead of individuals and I'll do something similar for the Falstaffs. Wikipedia's coverage of the entire "silent" era is so terribly poor that it is embarrassing. Feel free to take this to my user page, but I'm not pleased that Wikipedians seem to be keen on fighting each other rather than building an encyclopedia. Someone actually told me that English Wikipedia should be Angelo-centric and that figures like Japanese Emperors and the most holy shrines in Japan are not "notable". Others decided to redirect Dragon Ball Z because it was not "notable" - so when someone brings up N instead of GNG - I get sour quickly. N is wielded like a weapon and "common sense" is anything but. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)