Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rudolph Cartier
- 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 18:03, 4 June 2007.
Rudolph Cartier edit
Self-nomination. This is a current Good article, and has been for the last three months since I re-wrote and expanded it earlier this year. I wasn't sure whether or not it to nominate it for FAC, but after a peer review (here), feedback and encouragement from User:LuciferMorgan and User:Audacity has made me decide to at least give it a go. I am aware that there are certain sections of his life that lack in-depth coverage (whatever he was up to during World War II and the years between his retirement and death) but I have not been able to find any information about this at all in any of the published sources. I believe that the important and notable parts of his life and career are covered in full, cited detail, and there are plenty of other FAs on notable people that have similar gaps. Anyway, I thought I'd put it up and see what the verdict was. Angmering 13:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The article covers comprehensiveness (1. b.) in that it collects all of the verifiable information on Cartier which is currently available to the public. LuciferMorgan 14:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? How can that be verified... -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 15:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Angmering has searched many sources for the information on certain sections of Cartier's life and cannot find it, which therefore satisfies comprehensiveness. If you dispute this, feel free to cite the sources which shed light on these aspects of Cartier's life and User:Angmering will promptly use them. For now though I'm totally satisfied this article meets criterion 1. b. LuciferMorgan 16:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's 1c you're claiming to have fulfilled, as the nominator has mentioned there may be a slight problem with 1b, that is, comprehensiveness concerning World War II. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 17:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's 1b actually that I'm claiming is met - I know perfectly well which criteria I am or am not citing thank you very much. Criterion 1. b. says that ""Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details", and I feel that this article meets this requirement. I wish people would become more familiar with the criterion - it doesn't require one to cover everything and cover aspects on which nobody has even written about. The World War II bit isn't covered by any published sources, and isn't a major fact or detail. The major facts and details are Cartier's TV work, which the article covers. LuciferMorgan 18:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And it's 1c that suggests all claims should be verifiable against reliable sources, which is what you told me to do if I was unhappy with something. That's why I mentioned it. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 20:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand what you're saying now; you want verification there's little info on his World War II years? Ok, I get that. LuciferMorgan 22:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the issue is that there is the *potential* for there being missing information, but we don't know for sure whether there is or not. As a Germanic Jewish refugee living in the UK, he must have had some interesting / hard times (was he even deported to the Isle of Man? Given his later work with Nigel Kneale that would be notable), but as it is we simply don't know. He might have had a supremely dull war. There's simply nothing around (anywhere I can find) where he ever talks about it or anyone else has written about it. So basically, we don't know if anything notable is missing or not. Angmering 21:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And it's 1c that suggests all claims should be verifiable against reliable sources, which is what you told me to do if I was unhappy with something. That's why I mentioned it. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 20:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's 1b actually that I'm claiming is met - I know perfectly well which criteria I am or am not citing thank you very much. Criterion 1. b. says that ""Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details", and I feel that this article meets this requirement. I wish people would become more familiar with the criterion - it doesn't require one to cover everything and cover aspects on which nobody has even written about. The World War II bit isn't covered by any published sources, and isn't a major fact or detail. The major facts and details are Cartier's TV work, which the article covers. LuciferMorgan 18:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's 1c you're claiming to have fulfilled, as the nominator has mentioned there may be a slight problem with 1b, that is, comprehensiveness concerning World War II. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 17:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Angmering has searched many sources for the information on certain sections of Cartier's life and cannot find it, which therefore satisfies comprehensiveness. If you dispute this, feel free to cite the sources which shed light on these aspects of Cartier's life and User:Angmering will promptly use them. For now though I'm totally satisfied this article meets criterion 1. b. LuciferMorgan 16:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? How can that be verified... -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 15:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Well-written. Tony 10:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. It meets all the criteria and seems to me a factually comprehensive account of Cartier's career, concentrating on his most notable achievements, 1984 and Quatermass. If I could put my finger on a dimension that might add a touch more, it would a general context for Cartier's work in terms of the nature of society in the fifties and sixties (social change), other TV developments (Armchair Theatre, Pinter, etc.), the context of British film (given that Cartier was bringing cinematic elements to TV), any affinity or shared aesthetic with other European Jewish directors and producers working in Britain (Emeric Pressburger, Alexander Korda, Karel Reisz), and precursors in science fiction (what about Metropolis by Austrian Fritz Lang, or Korda's Things to Come?). What made the fifties peculiarly receptive to Quatermass (and to the similarly themed John Wyndham)? Anti-Communist paranoia? The space race? The atom bomb? If the specific sources don't mention any of this, fair enough, but more general social and television histories of the period might provide a wider dimension for the article at certain points. Anyway, just a thought.
Small notes:
- Katscher was "anglicised" to Cartier? It doesn't sound like an anglicisation to me, as such, I must say.
- What was the proto BAFTA for? Any particular production?
- One remaining crew member? We've not been told what happened to leave only one crew member remaining.
qp10qp 04:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks for these comments. I have added a paragraph with some sourced analysis of why the Quatermass serials were a success in the 1950s; some of what you suggested veers into essay-type territory, perhaps, and I am afraid I don't know enough about film to know where to source comparisons to film-makers of his era. But hopefully I've been able to add some of what you wanted? On the other points, I've adjusted the description of the surname change from "anglicised" to "changed", and added a brief description of what happened to the other two crewmembers in the first Quatermass serial. Unfortunately, the BAFTA webpage of results here doesn't name any specific production that Cartier was recognised for, just has him listed as the winner for 'Drama' that year. Angmering 15:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A comprehensive account of Cartier's career. Well-referenced and all images have acceptable fair use rationale. If Qp10qp's comments can be addressed, that would be great. CloudNine 08:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Who were the first two wives? The article only mentions the name of the third one. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Only one source mentions any of his wife's names; I've not been able to find names for the other two anywhere. Angmering 15:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. While I would like to know, sometimes the info just isn't out there. My concern is not enough to oppose the promotion of the article to FA status, though. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Only one source mentions any of his wife's names; I've not been able to find names for the other two anywhere. Angmering 15:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.