Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sherlock Holmes Baffled/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 15:14, 31 August 2010 [1].

Sherlock Holmes Baffled edit

Sherlock Holmes Baffled (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Bob talk 21:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although it's only 30 seconds long, this short film is accidentally significant in that it is the first Sherlock Holmes film, and therefore the first detective film ever made. It was a "Do You Know?" entry in February 2010, and since then it has undergone a peer review and has passed as a Good Article. After making improvements both times (and probably covering all details that can realistically be included about a 30-second silent film), I respectfully submit it for review here. Bob talk 21:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I am a little concerned about whether sources such as ref #1, ref #4, ref #6 are WP:RS good enough for WP:FAC. I have formatted some of the refrences, will carry on when you have finished edits. Also Imdb is not good except for credits. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think some of those date from when this article was in its infancy, and don't really reference anything that the book sources don't. I see what you mean about 1 and 4 as reliable sources. 1 should definitely go. In the context of the article 4 is only being used to back up my own summary of the "plot". Reference 6 is a strange one, as it appears to be a reprint of an article by John C. Tibbetts, who is quite a noteworthy academic, but exactly where the article is originally from I don't know. IMDb is only used to reference the length of film in feet, which I doubt would be listed anywhere else. Bob talk 00:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for your help with the reference templates. I have removed ref 1, ref 4 is only really being used to explain the "baffled" comment, and I have been unable to find where the Tibbetts one is originally from, so have moved that to the talk page. I have also added another book reference into the paragraph just before the IMDb film length. Bob talk 00:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. There are some minor inconsistencies in the references: some have the first name before the surname, others have it behind it; some have a space after "p.", others don't. 18 and 19 look like they're using a different template than the rest. Ucucha 08:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will finish formatting consistently later today. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done , we need a page number for ref #6 Slide, Anthony (1998). The New Historical Dictionary of the American Film Industry. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press. ISBN 9780810834262.
Thanks. Ucucha 08:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: Most of the sourcing and referencing issues have been resolved, apart from the minor format inconsistencies. However, I would like some information on http://www.weirdwildrealm.com/f-early-cinema2.html. Do we know who the publisher of this site is? Otherwise, how can we judge whether it is reliable? Brianboulton (talk) 10:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jezhotwells has very kindly sorted the referencing, and also provided a more reliable replacement for that website, so hopefully this is looking much more consistent now. Bob talk 20:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of the problematic web sources have now been replaced. Bob talk 21:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • "Cheaper and simpler than the Kinetoscope, the system—marketed by the American Mutoscope Company, quickly dominated the coin-in-the-slot "peep-show" business." This is confusing because of the mdash. Should there be another one after Company?
Reworded.
  • "This film is no exception, being produced for viewing in this manner on 68 mm film" This seems redundant; you have just explained it, so there is no need to say that the film is "no exception".
Reworded.
  • "The camera itself punched a sprocket hole on each side of the frame as the film was exposed at 30 frames per second." Maybe its my ignorance, but what is the relevance of "the camera itself punched a sprocket hole on each side of the frame". Does this mean it created a hole? Or went into a hole? I'm afraid it makes no sense to me!
It's noting that the camera itself made the little guiding holes along the side of the film frame, as opposed to it already being part of the film. As for relevance, it's just a point about the physical make-up of early camera apparatus.
I understand the relevance now; perhaps make this more explicit in the article as it does not fully explain it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned the lack of perforations in the film stock.
  • "The identity of the first screen Holmes, and that of his assailant, are not recorded.[13]" Should that be identities?
Sorted.
  • "According to Christopher Redmond's Sherlock Holmes Handbook, the film was shot on April 26, 1900.[14]" Is the Sherlock Holmes handbook so respected and reliable that this needs stating, when everything else says 1903? Where did the author get his information? Would it be better just to leave this out?
The film was almost certainly made in 1900, but only copyrighted in 1903, which is why there's several mentions of the two dates. Redmond's book is the only one that explicitly states a date of production, which is why it's noted in the article.
In that case, I think it should be more definite in the article. At the moment, it reads like one person says X but everyone else says Y. Is there any chance of briefly saying why it was probably made in 1900? And if it is so certain, I might be inclined to say "The film was almost certainly shot on April 26, 1900 but the film's title card..." or "The film was almost certainly shot in 1900..." --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another source on there states April 1900 (and a May "release"), so there's no reason to doubt this date is wrong. The tone of doubt probably originated from when I started researching the article and had seen various dates given of 1900 and 1903. April is mentioned in two references, so should be good enough.
  • "...a Sherlockian film historian..." Sherlockian sounds very clangy to me. Is it necessary to use this word rather than "Sherlock Holmes film historian" or "historian of Sherlock Holmes film"?
Sherlock Holmes fandom/scholarship has quite a lot of weird terms like this ("Baker Street Irregulars", Sherlockian, etc). It turns up in quite a few WP articles: [2]. I've revised this per your suggestion, although the original term is probably more accurate.
  • Rediscovery: I think it needs making a little more explicit that this is the form that the film was in when rediscovered. Also, I'm assuming from this section that it was never returned into film format and only survives on paper.
Clarified.
Is there a ref for its transference back to film? --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what to do here - I have been unable to find anything explicitely referencing its transfer back into a watchable format, but given that it's even on YouTube, it's fair to assume that it has been transferred to a moving-picture format of some description at some point since. I've removed the "transfered back to film" mention, anyway.
I've just found a reference to a 16mm print of it held in the LoC collection and re-added that sentence. Bob talk 17:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • When did William Gillette portray Holmes on stage? Might be nice to add it here. Would it be widely known at the time? Also, "appearance and costume " may need expanding: why did Redmond think it was an imitation?
I suspect Michael Pointer is making a comment about the appearance being more akin to Gillette's stage look than the traditional Holmes illustrations. I've added a comment about Gillette's stage play being premiered in New York a few months before the film was made, which lends it some credence.
Is it not "debut" rather than "debute"? --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified.
  • Was the existence of the film known at the time of its rediscovery? --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assume it was known of, but thought to be lost. Most early films were on volatile nitrate film, and quite a large percentage only survive on paper prints. Bob talk 10:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, was anything written about the film prior to 1968? --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I have no idea! If there was, I very much doubt there was anything but a brief mention of the title, given that even the identities of the actors aren't known. The Michael Pointer article says "I can report", as if it's been discussed but only seen for the first time since it went out of circulation. Bob talk 21:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

  • "Peep-show", "flip book" and "actualities": do these terms really need quotation marks?
Removed two. I've left the peep show one, as the term is commonly used to refer to Mutoscope film viewers (in Britain, they're sometimes called a "What the Butler Saw"). As "peep show" can also refer to other more, um, 'adult' entertainments, I thought it best to leave it.
  • "The film's title card copyright date states 1903" Quite a lot going on here. Is there a less cumbersome way of putting it? Maybe "The copyright date on the film's title card is 1903" or "The copyright date given at the start of the film is 1903"? Not sure though.
Clarified this section. Now the date part has been rationalised, this has been more smoothly integrated.
  • Do we know how many copies of the film there may have been, or how wide its distribution? If not, don't worry. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read anything about this in any of the references. Given it was made 110 years ago, and by a company which ceased to exist in 1928, I doubt any record of this is easily obtainable/extant. Bob talk 21:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Lead: The second paragraph seems a little short; could it be merged with the first?
  • Action: The second paragraph doesn't really follow on from the first. Could it be integrated a bit more so that it doesn't just read like a stuck on quote?
The main reason in both these cases is that the plot of this film is so desperately short and insignificant -I suspect this reply has probably taken longer to write than the entire film! In the first paragraph, it was separate because the convention for films seems to be that the second paragraph be a short summary of the plot, but I've now converted it into two paragraphs now, anyway. In the second instance, the quote was really just a comment on how wafer-thin the action is in comparison to later sound detective films. I've now moved that to the analysis section. Bob talk 10:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sherlock Holmes enters a drawing room to find it being burgled, but on confronting the villain is surprised when the latter disappears." Could be re-phrased. "...when the latter..." is a little clumsy. Would it be better in two sentences? Not sure.
I think "the latter" was added in response to an earlier suggestion to clarify who disappears. Any suggestions how to improve it grammatically would be appreciated.
You're asking the wrong person! :) Nothing springs to mind, and it's not too bad. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Analysis: Again, the paragraphs seem slightly disconnected. Could the first and second be merged as they both concern parodying Holmes. Maybe take out the names of the people you are quoting as it interrupts the flow. Also, the third paragraph could be brought in a bit more, for example linking the fact that it was Holmes in name only, or the parody aspect, to the idea that the main purpose of the film was to showcase trickery.
  • "Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's literary tales of Holmes" Is a bit of a mouthful. Is there a better way of saying that the film was nothing to do with the stories?
  • "If anything..." seems unnecessary.
Have integrated/corrected all of these points, along with the quote about the plot from the "action" section. Bob talk 10:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I can't see any outstanding issues, referencing is good, prose flows well, images are tagged public domain and captioned well, citations are consistent. An interesting article on an early film. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I really like this article; very interesting on a very obscure subject. No major problems. I made a minor copy edit to one part of the article; feel free to revert if it doesn't work for you. One more minor quibble:
    • "The film was assumed to be lost for many years..." How do we know it was assumed to be lost if we have nothing written about it? --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, I like your integration of the "baffled" bit. As for being lost, it is a bit of an assumption, but I guess it's implied by the Pointer article that it was at least assumed to be lost like most early films. It seems that it was only after WWII that there was any effort to search through paper prints held there. I've just written a short article about the second silent Holmes film Adventures of Sherlock Holmes; or, Held for Ransom. I was under the impression that film was lost as well, but it seems the Library of Congress also has some fragments of that in there, so I'll have to look into that - perhaps change it to "which survives in fragments".) Bob talk 21:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • ISBN format: The manual for this (ISO 2108) can be found here among other places.
You appear to have sorted this out. The link you give of the format is a Chinese language document, so not particularly helpful. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should find out whether or not the 1905 Vitagraph film’s title contains a definite article. Looks like the Library of Congress lists it without.
I believe the LoC is the only holder of film fragments, have removed the definite article. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the alt-text could use some attention:

    “A frame of the black and white film. Sherlock Holmes, on entering his parlour, taps an intruder collecting items in a sack on the shoulder. Holmes is wearing a dressing gown and smoking a cigar, the thief is dressed in black.”

    • This could be interpreted to mean the sack is being held on the shoulder of the intruder who is collecting items into it. There are a dozen sillier possibilities I’d care not to list.
    • Finally referring to “the thief” may lead confuse users—blind or image-disabled, remember—to assume there are three people in the photo.
Alt text is not an FA requirement any more. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

―cobaltcigs 22:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have added likely source for original upload, although in both cases they probably originate as a YouTube screenshot.
  • It's weird, it works fine in Firefox but not IE8. Not sure why, presumably due to a codec/Java issue. Unfortunately, my understanding of ogg Theora videos is very limited - I was quite chuffed to even get it to work at all! Bob talk 23:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worked fine on high speed University connection (firefox), but notm last night at home on domestic ASDL (firefox0. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: no criterion three issues significant enough to prevent promotion. File:Sherlock Holmes Baffled.ogv technically does not have a sufficiently verifiable source ("US Library of Congress paper print archive" is so imprecise as to be meaningless. What is the identification number? The LoC website or a physical archive?) I have, however, added a source for pre-1.1.1923 publication/registration, so the license is supported, which is the aspect that most matters. Эlcobbola talk 00:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP is not a dictionary. Why is "pistol" linked? Paper print? Detective film? (twice???) "Dressing gown"? "Perforated"? "New York City"? etc. Tony (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the noted instances of overlinking in the article. I have left "paper print", though, as I can't imagine early motion picture copyrighting methods are standard general knowledge. "Perforated" is linked because of the discussion above about film sprockets. Bob talk 02:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I knew what a “dressing gown” is because I used to read a lot but I doubt most readers will. Absent an explanatory link, I recommend using a more common term like “robe” or “house-coat” in its place (or in parentheses after the first instance). ―cobaltcigs 06:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it's referred to as a "dressing gown" in the books - there even seems to be a book about them! Bob talk 08:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That’s what I figured. Probably best to keep the link. ―cobaltcigs 09:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In England a house coat is what hose wives wear and a roble is what a member of the aristiocracy wera when inducted into the hosue of lords!. However, a dressing gown is a perfectly ordinary item of English clothing. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I dare ask, what do the British call the garment which a boxer (not typically a house-wife or a member of parliament) wears before (sorry…) disrobing to his shorts at the start of a fight? ―cobaltcigs 17:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know actually, I can't say I'm an expert on boxing. Google seems to refer to "dressing gowns" and "robes". I must say neither sound particularly matcho. Perhaps nobody's dared point it out? Bob talk 18:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Ignoring pictures and sources, I can't find any problems. Why does the movie take so long to load, or is it just me? Tom (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It does seem to get stuck on the buffering in Internet Explorer, doesn't it? (Does anyone know a more reliable method of converting mpeg to ogg video?) Luckily, the film's fairly widely available off wiki anyway - I really just added it at the suggestion of User:Nehrams2020. I've hopefully sorted the sourcing queries noted above since the above comments were made. Bob talk 00:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sherlock_Holmes_Baffled/archive1&oldid=1078806572"