Talk:Sleepless (1957 film)

GA nomination comment

I'm not sure that a DVD cover can be used as a source. Sugar Bear (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC))

Me too, but I have no other choice. :-) I literally exhausted the Internet for all its sources. It really strikes me to see how coverage of Egyptian films and cinema is very poor on the Internet, let alone this being one of the most important films in its history. Regards, Anas ^talk? 09:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried using printed sources? Sourcing from books on Egyptian cinema could get you some respect in GA and FA nominations. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC))

I'm afraid there are none and if there was any, I'm not so sure I can get my hands on them easily. I got a book on one of the starring actresses, Faten Hamama, but it only quickly mentions the film and its plot — nothing very helpful. Um, look, I wasn't so sure if the article would pass but I gave it a shot. Trust me, when it comes to Egyptian cinema (during that period), this is the best it can get. I honestly don't think there is any more to be possibly added. Thanks for taking the time, Ibaranoff. :-) Regards, Anas ^talk? 19:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

Article is very well written, and I'd rate it as a "high B-class" article. Very close to GA status, but there's two key reasons I do not put it there yet. First, is the trivia section. Trivia sections are ok to be included in B, start, and stub class articles, because they do assist with organizing information collected from multiple sources. But they are not very encyclopedic, and should be removed prior to GA status & above. True there's only one item here, and if it were not for my second concern, I'd probably put this on hold while the one item was just integrated into the above article.

But my second concern deals with criterion 3 of the good article criteria. I don't think the article is broad enough. When I read the 'reception' part, the last line says, "However, due to its controversial topic, it wasn't frequently broadcasted on television." Ok, so the topic is controversial, but how is it controversial? The reception section doesn't seem to adequately cover this aspect. It does tell me that the film enjoyed success & recognition in the arab-speaking world, and that it has maintained its popularity through the years. And reading the plot, I can see why some might think it's controversial. But nothing really talks about the controversy in the article. Put a few more details in supporting how it's controversial, and I think this article is easily GA quality. Dr. Cash 00:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, let me thank you for your review. I though the article was going to stay in WP:GAC forever. :-) I completely agree with your review. True, the article is not broad enough, but that is probably because there isn't much information available online. I will look for some information to add to the reception section, but I doubt I can find any. Thank you for your time, I appreciate it. Regards, Anas ^talk? 01:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:La-Anam-DVD.jpg

Image:La-Anam-DVD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 17:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on La Anam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070322192726/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/836/cu4.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/836/cu4.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)