Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/"She Shoulda Said 'No'!"

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 02:07, 1 June 2007.

---

"She Shoulda Said 'No'!"

Another "classic" exploitation film up for Featured Article candidacy. A few notes:

1. Yes, it's shorter than most. I checked up against the discussion on length in the talk archives, and made triple-sure that this couldn't realistically be expanded past what's written - it can't.
2. This title was come to after some discussion off-site with a number of unrelated editors. The general agreement was to go with the official title, and be very generous with redirects. There is no true "standard" title for this - the unorthodox use of quotations lends itself to some creative titling even in academic-style texts.

Regardless, I believe this is one of our best shorter articles on a film genre that's typically overlooked. It's comprehensive, has been through multiple peer reviews and copyedits, is currently a GA, has been on the main page as a DYK, and everything appears to be in order. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Background and Production sound like the same thing. How about merging them. The part about the films distribution sould be in it's own section. Cast needs more info. Buc 08:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Let me know about the restructuring here. As for cast, there's no much more I can say - what are you looking for that it's lacking? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Should be written in an ACTOR as CHARACTER format. A short summary of the importance and role of the character in the film. Relevant casting information. Buc 14:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
      • There's no consistent format for cast sections in other FAs. A similar one with this format was recently promoted, Mom and Dad, and Blade Runner has incomplete information. There's nothing I could say about the "importance and role" given the type of film it was and the relevant material. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Multiple requests to continue to discuss this issue have not resulted in a response. It is my belief that this is a style issue and not anything actionable, the cast information is relevant, and the character importance is secondary to this type of cinema. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Comment. I have concerns about the layout also. A background section should be before the plot. The last paragraph in the plot section should probably be in the production section. Cla68 23:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind the first sentence in my comment. I see from looking at other movie articles that the plot section is usually first after the intro. My second comment, though, stands. Otherwise, I think it meets the criteria. Cla68 01:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me know what you think of this adjustment. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Some might object to the number of red links in the article, but I personally don't have a problem with it. I think it now meets the criteria. Cla68 02:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input and support. Being the only person working on these films, it's a constant struggle in catching up with the redlinks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support, although there's just one thing, and this is totally minor: Schaefer, 241-242 is cited twice after the same sentence. Guy Fuchsia 16:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Good catch. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comments Support. It's short, but this doesn't prevent such an unpopular film from becoming featured. I have several other concerns, though:

• ""She Shoulda Said 'No'!" was not well-received critically, with the New York Times saying "[n]ever did vice seem so devoid of enchantment."" — I don't like this sentence because it implies the New York Times was the only factor for the assessment it wasn't well-received critically. Actually, the film was quite favored by at least three critics (see the rottentomatoes entry). I'd expect a reword to "mixed critical reception", providing positive and negative reviews in the subsequent sentences.

• Of the three reviews at the RT entry, one is an epinions, one has no source material, and one is credited to Joe Bob Briggs, who wasn't even alive during the film's initial run. Would it be better to clarify that the critical reaction stems from its initial release in this case?

• Yes, if no other reliable reviews can be found. Michaelas¹⁰ 16:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep the date formatting constant. Link full dates in the "Works cited" section.

• What did I miss on this one? I couldn't figure this one out.

• Sorry for being unclear in this — choose either American or British date formatting and keep it constant throughout the article. Link full dates in the "Works cited" section. Michaelas¹⁰ 16:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, done.

• Spoiler warning?

• If necessary, I will add it. I didn't use one for Mom and Dad, in the belief that the plot is ultimately secondary for these films.

• It's not necessary, nor included in any guideline, but I think we should consider it for the reader's sake. Michaelas¹⁰ 16:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not of the opinion that we need it, but if consensus eventually goes otherwise, no problem.

• "...eventually changed the title to "She Shoulda Said 'No'!"" - Period.

• Fixed.

• "the square-up stating that the producers wished "to..." - Split sentence, remove "that", put "to" outside the quotations.

• I'm not sure I'm following - see my change on this.

• It's fine. Michaelas¹⁰ 16:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks.

• "...than any other film that the same theater would earn over a full run" - What theater? Remove "that" again. Michaelas¹⁰ 18:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think I fixed this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Anything else you can see? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Exemplifies the best of Wikipedia - well-referenced and intriguing article about a little-known part of American history that could otherwise be lost in the mists of time. Excellent work. FCYTravis 19:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose: Either ditch the cast list, or expand it. You don't say anything there, so you can either include the actors names in paranthesis in the plot, or expand the list to include some details about the characters. Get rid of the red links. You may need to create some stub articles, but you may just need to delink them. Your first use of a book as a citation needs to be filled with Template:cite book. We need ISBN number, publisher. Fill in the crieria. Subsequent uses of the book don't need to repeat the formula (they are fine the way you have them), but first usage of a book should have more than just its name and a page number. We need to be able to locate the book you used to verify, if need be. "Works cited" and "References" are redundant. If "works cited" is where you are keeping the book's publishing information that I told you to cite in "cite book" format, then put it in cite book format (or cite web format for those amazon sources) and ditch the "Works cited" section. That's all for now.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, lots to cover here: 1) The cast list is similar, as noted, to other FAs. 2) The redlinks are simply articles that need to be made. The amount of redlinks aren't a problem. 3) The first book citation is, I believe, the pressbook. The pressbook has no ISBN number, and is already cited to who produced it - I don't plan to convert to the template, but I won't stop others who might want to. 4) The citation format is identical to what's at Mom and Dad and similar to The Turk, both featured articles. Again, I find the templates difficult to use and I consider this a style issue and not anything truly actionable. Thanks for the input so far. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Are you planning on creating the articles for those red links? There are no pages for them now, and keeping them red does not guarantee that there will ever be pages for them. They also are a distraction to the page. Secondly, the cast section may be similar to Mom and Dad, but not the majority of FA articles. Also, per style guidelines for the cast section (which is not even necessary to have in an article) it should look like what Buc suggested at the top. Stylistically, it's ugly. Lists should be avoid if possible, and you could at least expand on who these characters are. If you look at the link I provided, it gives examples of what kind of information to include. Also, why is the cast at the bottom of the page? It should be with the plot. If you are using a source more than once, you should use <ref name="make up a name"> as the start of the first reference note (still ending it with </ref>), and use <ref name="use same name"/> as the entire in-text citation for all subsequent uses.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
      • On the redlinks, yes, eventually. I see redlinks as how the encyclopedia expands, so I'm really intent on holding my ground here - just because I'm the only person working on exploitation films doesn't mean that the redlinks should disappear. As for the style, that's simply a preference - the Wikiproject guidelines are in no way binding, and, especially in a genre of film where the plot and characterization is secondary, the information provided is really the information available. With the referencing, I avoid the the <ref name> templates these days because of situations I ran into with The Turk - it's harder to track down, and I'm relying on the page numbers. Again, it's one preference v. another. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Redlinks are good for the encyclopedia, if you don'
• Comment I'll outline points below as I see them, apologies if covered above, I did try my hardest not to duplicate but may do so accidentally.
  • For obvious reasons, "Unknown 1948–49 magazine" doesn't sit very well, though I'm sure you have made every effort to find more information.
    • I did, and yes, it's frustrating.
  • Cast, if none of the cast have second names (or first names if the 2nd is given) then that's fine, but if it gives both names then both should be listed here.
    • Cast list is straight from the promotional material.
  • Citing statements in the first paragraph is generally a good idea, I would think it best to cite "Its success came only after the promotional posters were redone and a story fabricated that the film was being presented in conjunction with the United States Treasury" in the lead even if it is cited later in the article.
    • If this is necessary, I'll take care of it once I get back, I'll be out of the house in about 15 minutes and need to dig out something.
  • I think that "works cited" should be "references" and "references" should be "notes". Also, I think those two sections should swap places, with published sources being the last part of the article - I have done this also, hope that's okay, see the Mozambican War of Independence for an idea of what I'm trying to do SGGH ^speak! 21:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Your unknown article needs an access date, but I will do this for you.

That's all for now, hope that helps, and hope I didn't duplicate anything above (I probably duplicated everything!) SGGH ^speak! 21:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• nope, it's good. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I really can't get over the cast section either. Listing the roles the actors played isn't helpful if that's the first mention of a given character. Eg. "Mary Ellen Popel - Rita", who is this Rita? What does she do in the film? Only two of the characters are mentioned anywhere else (and one is obvious), but having some explanation on the others would help. - Bobet 09:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

That's also a good point, missed that one SGGH ^speak! 11:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, and some more images would be good! :) SGGH ^speak! 11:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to find a few more images, but I'm not having a ton of luck. Maybe I can dig up a screenshot (I have the film in my DVD collection), but I'm not sure if I can find a good one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I swear, I'd love to have the cast section have paragraphs upon paragraphs of information, but that's not what this genre was about, and there's literally nothing that I can put on this bast what's there - the selling point of these films are how really poor they are, and the salacious content. I'm not sure what I can do without compromising quality or going into probable OR territory. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not really the point. All I'm saying you should put in some context instead of random names that tell a reader nothing. (Look at Mom and Dad, you did it just fine there). Something simple like "David Holt - Bob Lester, Ann's brother", "Don Harvey - Lieutenant Tyne, one of the cops that arrest Ann" would be enough by my account. Both of those characters are already mentioned in the text, why would actually telling which actor plays them be a bad thing. - Bobet 09:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologise, I'm not seeing the difference between the cast sections - they're pulled the exact same way from the sources provided (that's actually how he's credited in the pressbook), not to mention there was more written about Mom and Dad. Trust me, I see your point, but that's not quite what's happening here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose There are 2 issues here. First, the cast section are not detailed enough. A good cast section should give a brief introduction to the character played by the actor. Also, the references at the bottom are far better placed inline, so people can see where they are to be utilized.--Kylohk 10:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't keep repeating myself about the cast section here. Secondly, the references are cited properly, and this is not a unique instance. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• SupportOppose Nice article overall, just needs some clarification/expansion. I'll support if some issues are cleared up:
  • Lead:The film was issued under many titles; it struggled to find an audience until film presenter Kroger Babb picked up the rights, reissuing it as The Story of Lila Leeds and Her Exposé of the Marijuana Racket. - later the article tells us it was not successful under this title either, so this sentence is misleading
  • The film itself is a semi-documentary, since its story follows what Leeds herself experienced. - that might make it semi-autobiographical, but doesn't make it a semi-documentary unless it is shot partially as documentary.
  • Kay filmed the production, like many similar movies of the era, in six days Kay filmed many similar movies of the day? Many similar movies of the day were shot in six days? I think you mean many similar movies were shot quickly at that time but I can't really tell from this.
  • The square-up stated that the producers wished to "publicly acknowledge the splendid cooperation of the Nation's narcotic experts and Government departments, who aided in various ways the success of this production - did any of the people mentioned co-operate? (from Babb's reputation I suspect not)
  • Babb often booked the movie as a midnight presentation twice a week in the same town, although David F. Friedman,... - gives us the reasons David F. Friedman thinks were behind Babb's plan, what did Babb or other commentators claim? (the "although" isn't contrasting with anything)
  • According to Friedman, Babb's presentations of the film made more money than any other film the same theater would showcase over a full run. Would normally showcase over a full run? Would showcase over a full run that was occurring at the same time as Babb's presentations. Is that per-presentation, or per booking (as we are told he would book them for two nights in the same week)
  • While actual dollar figures are not available because of the nature of the genre - why not? because of the nature of the genre doesn't tell us anything here
  • ...was not as successful as other efforts... we only know of one other effort: this one.
  • Some elaboration of the changes in the production code wouldn't go amiss. Was this film impacted by the previous restrictions?
  • ...eventually being featured in a number of re-releases... Awkward. Was it re-released as a stand-alone film before 2006 or only as part of a compilation? Are the three re-releases listed the only ones? (in which case the "many re-releases" mention in the poster caption needs rewording)

  Glad to see you standing firm on the redlink issue though: redlinks are good for the encyclopedia. Yomangani^talk 01:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  Okay. I think I've dealt with all of these - the Kay portion, I need more information on what's confusing to you, and while the "semi-documentary" comes from source, I think I worked around that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  At the moment the Kay sentence can be read as "Kay filmed many of the other similar movies of the period" or "Many of the other movies of the time were shot in six days". You need to re-factor the sentence to make it clear which, if either, is meant. Even if Kay did shoot a lot of similar movies of the period this construction adds a lot of emphasis so unless he is overwhelming the most prolific director I'd change it. The caption of the poster image still mentions many re-releases which is now not supported by the text. Yomangani^talk 15:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

  I see what you're saying, and I think I fixed this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

  Almost. Is six days something peculiar to these types of films or do you mean short turn around times were common (rather than six days specifically)? Yomangani^talk 01:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

  OHHHH! I get it now. I think I've fixed it better. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support Nice stuff. I'd like to see "the two, along with two others" replaced by something a little less akward but I think the writing is really good. The redlinks issue is in fact not an issue as patiently explained by Jeff. However, a stub for Alan Baxter would perhaps be a good idea since he's one of the lead actors in the movie. Pascal.Tesson 22:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll see if I can find anything on him quickly. Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I still oppose the cast list. There's nothing there. If you are only going to list the characters names, and the people that played them, you might as well put it in the plot with a little expansion of what they do. Otherwise, there isn't a need for them. I know you said that another article has it that way, but that isn't common practice. If you have a cast section (which isn't mandatory), it's generally supposed to be the "Actor as Character" format, with a brief explaination of who the character is. Something a bit more important, why is the marketing information with the production information? They aren't specifically related. Marketing should have its own section. Also, you don't give any information on the VHS release other than a date, so I'm not seeing in the text any critical commentary that would justify fair-use for a non-free image like that. Just saying "it was released on DVD in ..." doesn't justify the use of a non-free image. The article is so small that it isn't going to hurt it if you don't have the DVD cover.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, we're going to have to disagree on the cast part - there's no absolute way it must be done, and it's not something that would be sensible mixed in with the plot, nor is "actor as character" any sort of consistent format across FAs. As for the production and marketing, they're very much intertwined - the film was produced specifically because of the marketing possibilities. These films weren't works of art as much as possibilities of being a quick buck for the producers, which I think is a point people might be missing here. The cover - that's not a VHS cover, it's the DVD cover, and it is justified due to how it's presented and continued to be presented - that even during the rereleases, the naughty bits were the more compelling parts. I'm sorry that you have to oppose based on preferences rather than anything involving what makes an FA, but for the image stuff, I hope you can come around or we can reach some sort of something. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I can ignore the cast, but just because the producers were out to make a quick buck doesn't make the marketing connected to the production. You can interwine text without forcing them into the same section. Otherwise, it needs a better title, because "Production and marketing" give off a different meaning then I think you are actually trying to convey. The DVD isn't justified, because you don't talk about it beyond "in 2006, Alpha Video Distributors produced the first stand-alone DVD release of the film." I've seen the non-free police attack images with far more commentary, and you have a single sentence citing the date it was released on DVD. It's eye candy. If you think it represents more then you need to say it. The information is lacking in describing exactly what is going on. When you say "I think that is a point people might be missing here", that says to me that the information is the article isn't doing a good enough job of describing the point. I understand it's an old exploitation film, and there isn't going to be a lot of information on it because of that, but it still has to make sense. If the people that edit here regularly aren't getting it, how can we expect casual readers to understand?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, if you have a different idea on a heading for that section, I'd love to hear it. As for the image, I've vetted it with a number of people, and I'll see if I can't expand the bottom section to make it make more sense for you. But you misunderstand my idea of a "point people might be missing." It's clear that this film isn't any old movie, but people, for whatever reason, want to pigeonhole it as such. I'm not sure how to fix that, or that it really has to be fixed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm not that familiar with exploitation films in general. The get that the idea behind "exploitation" is exactly what you trying to go for in the "production and marketing" section. It may work better as a section/subsection format, but I'm not knowledgable in exploitation lingo. As for the DVD image, right now, I don't see anything that's there that couldn't be done with simple text. What's in the caption along is sufficient to describe the DVD, and you don't need an image for it. People can look at the poster in the infobox see what you mean by "continued the focus on the sensational material."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Then we disagree on this one. Everyone I've talked to have had no problems with it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support No problems with the cast list here. Nice work. I have a few questions and/or comments about the references however. I'm supporting in advance because it's all relatively minor.
  • What is no. 3, the Reefer Madness reprint? I would assume it's the film but what does it have to do with the plot?
    • Simply one of two plot summaries I found. The Reefer Madness musical production website is hosting the page is all.
  • How did you get access to the Anslinger correspondence? This question's solely for my curiosity's sake.
    • I can't remember what book it was in at this stage, but it wasn't one of my regular sources. I wish I held onto it.
  • Do you have access to the unknown magazine? If not it should be emphasized that the website is the source.
    • See above.
  • Collier's is missing the apostrophe.
    • Fixed.
  • Shooting Stars is listed under websites.
    • Good catch, fixed.
  • The Briggs review doesn't mention cult status. And his name order should be reversed.
    • Shame on me for doing something I assumed was understood.
  • Wouldn't it be better to link to reviews rather than amazon? Makes Wikipedia seem less whorish and would be potentially more useful to readers.
    • If I knew of any reliable reviews, I would. I'll replace/support replacing if any are found.
• As long as I'm commenting on small touches, I like the idea of using the tag line under the poster image instead of the useless "[title]'s movie poster", which seems to have caught on. Overall, well done. Doctor Sunshine talk 22:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot! --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    • You're fast. And you're right, there's not a lot of reviews let alone any reliable ones. I thought the films I'm into were obscure. One other thing, the images here seem to be from either the publicity material their intended destination, newspaper advertisements but the one in the article is tagged as being a poster. Unless you're sure, I'd either switch that to the publicity tag or use this instead. Doctor Sunshine talk 02:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I learned something new today, I was unaware of the publicity tag. i've swapped it, good check. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
        • It's also great for dinner parties. Reaffirming my support. It's good stuff. Doctor Sunshine talk 21:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support — Excellent overview of the film. Great to see such improvement on cult and exploitation film articles. How about working on Reefer Madness next? (Ibaranoff24 14:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC))
  • Good idea, I have a lot of the books for it already. I'll add it to my list. Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose This article is really short (9 paragraphs of which a few are only 2 sentences long) and doesn't go into much detail as to the plot of the movie, social impact, etc. Other problems include:

• Too many dead/unwritten wikilinks; see [[1]]. While I understand your point that dead links can lead to new articles, it doesn't seem likely in this case. In addition, they detract from the article.
• "...production. . . . If its..." is incorrect grammar; use only three periods for ellipses, not four.
• Should use active voice and not passive voice: rephrase things like "was written", "were redone", "were arrested", etc.
• all of "Frank Sinatra's" should be wikilinked IAW WP:MoS (don't miss the apostrophe and "s").

In short, it's way too short to be an FA and the above problems detract from the situation. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see much there that supports an oppose. Length doesn't equal comprehensiveness. If your opinion is that it isn't comprehensive, then that is actionable if you can give an example of what is lacking. There is nothing wrong with the redlinks (the link you gave has nothing relevant to say on the matter apart from this in support of redlinks "When there is not yet an article about that subject, good links will make the creation of a correctly named article much easier for later writers"), if you don't like the colour then write an article to fill one or use a different css. The passive voice should not be overused, but it can be used. The Frank Sinatra objection was spot on but I fixed it. Yomangani^talk 19:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try the direct/blunt approach

• Passive voice is overused

• Examples of where you think it's problematic? I'm glad to fix it if you can help out.

• Use ellipses properly

• Small overlooked problem that will be fixed before you see this message.

I undid that change - unless "production" wasn't the last word of the sentence then the four dots were correct: a period followed by an ellipsis. Yomangani^talk 22:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• The plot of the movie is badly lacking and is not comprehensive.

For an example of a better plot synopsis, see Mary Poppins (film); not the best, but much more comprehensive.

• Think of the plot section as similar to, say, the infancy of George W. Bush. Sure, you could probably add a bunch of information about it, but is it relevant? In this case, the plots of these movies were typically worthless - it was about the sensational material and the issues surrounding the marketing of the film. Beyond that, the plot is about as detailed as it could get anyway, apart from me sitting there with a notepad and sitting through this movie (which was painful for the 10 minutes I did watch). I'd say it if there was more to say.

• The link I provided states that no more than 10% of the links should be unwritten. Of the 48 references, 8 are unwritten wikilinks. That is 17% and is far more than the WP:MoS recommends

• So you're essentially quibbling over three redlinks. I could just as easily find a dozen words to wikilink and bring that ratio down, but I really don't think that's necessary - the articles will be written, just not right now.

• "1949" in the opening sentence and info box should not be wikilinked.

• Fixed.--badlydrawnjeff talk 19:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.