Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Ronald Reagan filmography/archive1

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 19:19, 11 August 2012 [1].

Ronald Reagan filmography

edit

Ronald Reagan filmography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): – Lionel (talk) 10:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC), Happyme22 (talk)[reply]

This filmography is representative of the best that Wikipedia has to offer. The lead amply covers Reagan's film career, activities in the Air Corps movie unit, his TV career and transition to politics. Much of the prose has been copied from our Featured Article Ronald Reagan itself (nominated by Happyme22).

The filmography features 9 embedded files! 5 of the files are videos!!! This will be the only FL filmography with any video whatsoever. Including video is a natural and obvious addition. We hope this filmography will serve as a model demonstrating how to incorporate rich media. – Lionel (talk) 10:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - quick comments.
  • Lead, well we should refer to WP:LEAD. You currently have ten paras in the lead, I would expect no more than three. You could create a section to explain Reagan's acting career, but make sure the lead just that, a lead which summarises the whole article.
  • Maybe a little too much trimming. I said around three paras in the lead, summarising the whole article! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't mix date formats for things like accessdate or date. Be consistent.
  • Don't shout in the ref titles (e.g. ref 6).
  • IMDB refs, we don't consider IMDB to be a reliable source so you need alternatives for refs 17 and 18.
  • Ha!!! I copied that verbatim from the Featured Article! I tagged it over there. I'll wait a couple days for them to fix it--if not I'll take care of it.– Lionel (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "May 02, 2012." no need for leading zeros in dates.
  • Yikes. The stuff that somehow gets in these articles. Fixed. – Lionel (talk) 01:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the purpose of [more] which leads our readers into the depths of other namespaces?
  • Not for me, it simply links to a list of pages which use that template. It's not useful in the slightest... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's used on a several thousand pages, and I'm hesitant to change it without consensus. I've started a discussion and asked for input from WPFilm. – Lionel (talk) 06:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then I suggest you dump the template and hand-code it. The list of "what links here" contains User pages, template pages etc, and shouldn't be for our readers to consume. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done--removed link per "overwhelming" consensus at template talk.– Lionel (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, TRM. Hopefully this will wrap up before you-know-who finds out about it. ;-) – Lionel (talk) 01:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More

  • Pat O'Brien is a dab link.
  • New York Times should be The New York Times.
  • Taft-Hartley should take an en-dash not a hyphen.
  • Still have some concerns over the large number of shortish paragraphs.
  • "Knute Rockne, All American" seems to have a comma, not a space or a hyphen as you variously have it.
  • "Academy Award Nomination - Best Short" en-dash, not hyphen. Check others.
  • "Best Short" is linked on its first and third time, not the second, why the relinking in this way?
  • Done--only 1st is linked now– Lionel (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 26 is just floating and isn't really telling me what it's supposed to be citing.
  • Changed column header to "Notes/References" – Lionel (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Academy Award Nomination and Win " well you can't win without being nominated. And after this you just say "Win..."
  • Format of ref 26 needs work.
  • Not sure all the external links are really necessary.

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • there should be no spaces between the dash in the first sentence
  • could link army air force
  • His assigned unit, First Motion Picture Unit, is linked. Would linking AAF be too much?– Lionel (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • likewise academy award for short film
  • Opted to link 1st mention of "Academy Award."– Lionel (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have Screen Actors Guild in one sentence then abbreviate it to SAG in another without providing the abbreviation after the original use
  • "sixteen weeks out of the year, often demanding of him fourteen" you have 19 in digits earlier these two should be in digits as well
  • you have GE and general electric close together, yet you never provide an abbreviation, provide it after the first use and stick with it
  • link kings row in second section
  • Hmmm. It appears to be linked already. Could you post part of the sentence you're referring to. – Lionel (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, should have been more specific, the sentence is "Many film critics considered Kings Row to be his best movie" in third para of the entertainment career section. NapHit (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kings Row is linked in the immediately preceding sentence, as well as being linked when it first appears in the lede. This should be enough. – Lionel (talk) 03:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main issue I have is that the tables do not meet MOS:DTT, I also think they can be rearranged slightly so that the film is the first row not the year, this format was used in Jennifer Lopez filmography was promoted recently.
  • working on MOS:DTT... Personally I think the year in the 1st column is easier for the reader to understand. Let's get a 2nd opinion on moving the title first.– Lionel (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this one up, so others can post their opinion. Regardless of whether the move is supported or not, rowscopes will need to be added to the tables which they have not at the moment. NapHit (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reviewed MOS:DTT and fixed "Correct table captions". The rowscopes have been added. – Lionel (talk) 03:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've amended the first able as exclamation marks need to be used instead of pipes for the rowscopes, the same will need to be done in the tv table. NapHit (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for handling Films--I fixed the TV table. – Lionel (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Thanks for the cleanup NapHit– Lionel (talk) 04:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks NapHit! – Lionel (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Ref 17 should be BBC News
  •  Done
  • Per WP:YEAR: A closing CE or AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year, in which case the full closing year is given so 1953–1954, 1961–1963, 1964–1965 need to be adjusted. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Thanks for the observations Lemonade – Lionel (talk) 02:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Toa Nidhiki05
Neutral - Very good article on Reagan's filmography. The only major issue I see is the television table, where it appears some sections of the table are mixed up or in the wrong area. Withholding support until table is fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 19:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Oops. Must've broke when I was fixing something else. – Lionel (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great list. Very informative. Ryan Vesey 01:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 16:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • Bold links in the lead are discouraged by the Manual of Style, and I personally don't see a need to bold any of it.
  • Doesn't MOS require that "filmography of Ronald Reagan" be bold? Perhaps "His acting career began..." could be replaced with "Ronald Reagan's acting career began...". I fixed the em dash issue and warner bros. Ryan Vesey 23:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Ryan. @Giants, I moved the wikilink. I believe the sentence now complies with WP:LEADSENTENCE. – Lionel (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. In that case, can we please fix the "Reagans acting career" and turn it into "Reagan's acting career" now? Giants2008 (Talk) 22:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor, but the MoS discouages unspaced en dashes (the little ones). You can switch to the larger em dash, or just make the en dash spaced.
  • Ryan fixed this, thanks.
  • No, he didn't, at least not for the one I saw. The one in the first paragraph, which is the one I was commenting on, is still there. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Got it--and rechecked the article. – Lionel (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "such as Recognition of the Japanese Zero Fighter and Beyond the Line of Duty. Beyond the Line of Duty...". Not an easy thing, I know, but try not to have something repeat from one sentence to another like this. It's not that appealing to read.
  • Is it "Warner Bros. Studios" or "Warner Brothers studios"? The lead and body differ.
  • Ryan fixed this, thanks.
  • The capitalization of "studios" is still inconsistent, and should be made to be one style or the other. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Entertainment career: No need for the comma in "April, 1942." Also no need for it in later instances.
  • "in particular those of Lemuel Boulware. Boulware...". More repetition from sentence to sentence.
  • What makes Nndb.com (ref 19) a reliable source?
  • From their website: "Additions or corrections to profiles submitted by users are not included automatically. A member of the NNDB staff vets any submitted change, and applies any changes selectively and manually." And the page has additional info on their fact checking policy. The editorial oversight makes it RS. – Lionel (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just don't like using a user-generated source for a sentence such as "Reagan, a liberal Democrat, began to shift to the right as his relationship with Republican Nancy Davis grew." There has been so much written about the Reagans in reliable books, newspapers, and magazines that we shouldn't need to rely on such a questionable source, which is no different than something like IMDB (also frowned upon). Why settle when there are plenty of better sources you could use? Giants2008 (Talk) 22:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)
Comments from Crisco 1492
  • "includes many motion pictures and television screen work." - Any way to rework this so we don't have "many ... television screen work"?
  • changed to "many motion pictures and a selection of his television screen work" – Lionel (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That begs the question of what the exclusion criteria are. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The inclusion criteria is all of his works which are covered in the General references: Metzger, Allmove and the Reagan Library. Most of his work is listed, so there wouldn't be much to to which to apply an exclusion policy. – Lionel (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done why didn't I think of that – Lionel (talk) 07:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the latter having won the Academy Award for Best Short film." - Not when he narrated it, surely. Perhaps "the latter of which later won ..."
  • "Before the film Santa Fe Trail" - do you need "film" here? It's implied from the context
  • Fix CN tag for direct quote
  • (officially, the "18th AAF Base Unit") - Do you need those quotes? What purpose do they serve
  • "He met fellow star Nancy Davis" - You just said he never regained his star status, so how could she be a fellow star?
     Done changed "star status" to "stardom" – Lionel (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the marriage would be one of the closest in U.S. political history, and the couple had two children: Patti and Ron." - Illogical joining. Perhaps "the marriage, one of the closest in U.S. political history,resulted in two children: Patti and Ron.:
  •  Done much better, thanks – Lionel (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI the list was copied from the FA article
Voice: loved it at imdb; was "the best of these [post war light comedies]" --Cannon
John: Patricia Neal's first film
Bedtime: well, it's Bedtime for Bonzo!
Winning Team: "best picture of this period [post war]" --Cannon (and poster uploaded by Crisco!)
Cattle: impacted Scorsese; "the best [of his post war westerns]" --Cannon
TN: inspired one of the greatest hits of The Four Seasons, and Rhonda Fleming ooh-la-la
Hellcats: Erick Harper says it has "historical value"
Actually, I would probably drop John Loves Mary and add The Hasty Heart.– Lionel (talk) 12:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done a film list before (not at FLC yet!) and generally I prefer keeping only films significant to the development / reception of the subject in the lead text; the list can handle the minor works. That being said, I don't know enough about 40s and 50s Hollywood films to identify offhand which of those are important and which aren't. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That works for me. I'll review the impact/legacy of his later films and get back to you. Your list is fascinating. Have you thought of going for GA before FLC? That way you could snag another WP:FOUR. I know it isn't technically an article--but the right reviewer would do it I think. – Lionel (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, but I don't think four would even apply for FLs. Did you see my comment above? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes to "TV edisodes" and to "only films significant..."--working on 'em. – Lionel (talk) 01:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In his book [2] Lou Cannon puts Reagan's films into historical context: the list has been adjusted to reflect Cannon's perspective
  • What makes General Electric Theatre "The Dark, Dark Hours" and "Ronald Reagan on TV" by Billy Ingram, at TVParty.com. valid external links? The first may fail ELNO for copyright infringement, while the second doesn't seem to be a notable website.
  • Alright, just drop a note here when you're done (watchlisted) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Dark, Dark is a rare clip. I think it holds interest for our readers. I changed the link to the full page at The Atlantic which isn't known for infringement. TVParty.com is notable. "A twisted walk down memory lane!"- Sharon Edry, TV Guide, "Top Five Sites! Interviews and articles... are must reads." - London Sunday Times and other positive reviews at the website. – Lionel (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, be careful not to have too many though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you only knew what the section looked like before the FLC lol.– Lionel (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Important point that I want to bring to the community's attention: on my talk page, the nominator states that he copied text from the main Ronald Reagan article for use in this one. What do we think about this? I'm not a fan of copying since there are potential attribution issues, and I don't like the concept of making our best work by taking excessively from other best work. I know some style and formatting elements are similar from list to list, and in the leads of these lists, but I'm concerned that we're pushing things a bit here. I don't want to outright oppose, but want the community's input before a possible promotion. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copied content is located in the Entertainment career section. This is essentially a "bonus" section. I.e. there is still enough "original" prose for the list to rise to Featured quality without the section. But it would be a shame to trim it. The original Reagan article has already started to drift away from the copied content. And the version here, through the FLC process, has also undergone numerous improvements and corrections of errors that were in the Reagan article. I believe this version is better than the FA. IMO the section enhances the quality from FL to premier FL.– Lionel (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So long as there is attribution, copyright-wise we are fine. I think it's fine for FLC too, because some lists generally use boilerplate introductory text (those lists of centuries and medal tables, for example) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks good to me. I think the use of spaced en-dashes is possibly a more European English thing, though. Could be wrong about that. GRAPPLE X 23:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Media files review

  •  Done A substantial amount of GE Theatre material was donated to the RR Library. I emailed the library to confirm that this was included. Even though this is probably PD, I've removed it pending confirmation and replaced it with a substitute. I may also just license it Fair Use: it adds enormously to the list.– Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 00:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done There is a good chance that this is a non-copyrighted film studio promotional poster. This was routine for the era. However in the instance that this is in fact (c) by Warner Bros, I've replaced it with a substitute pending confirmation. – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 00:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having done a lot of free poster-related uploads, I can tell you that WB was pretty good at giving a copyright notice on their poster after about 1933 (MGM, on the other hand...). Now, it may have not been renewed in whatever year renewal was due (28 years after publication) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other than these two, I found no copyright related problems. Goodraise 18:50, 8 August 2012 (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_list_candidates/Ronald_Reagan_filmography/archive1&oldid=1142601410"