Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ralph Bakshi/archive7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 10:48, 16 May 2009 [1].

Ralph Bakshi[edit]

Nominator(s): Ibaranoff24 (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

The content of the article has been significantly improved since its last FAC and it has undergone a peer review. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images all fine, however I would prefer File:US_patent_1242674_figure_3.png on a more free licence Fasach Nua (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question:Why is his name Bakshi? Does he have an Indian lineage? Nothing about his parents is mentioned in the article. --59.182.66.154 (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bakshi is Jewish. I think that comes across as being pretty clear in the article. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Tech. Review
  • 0 dead external links were found with the links checker tool.
  • 0 ref formatting errors were found with WP:REFTOOLS.--Truco 21:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A very well structured and researched article. It's largely well written too--I'm sure this can get to FA status--but there are still some serious copyediting issues here. Here's just two from the first 15% of the article:

  • Lead section--"Bakshi then simultaneously directed a number of animated films, and is perhaps best-known for his fantasy work: Wizards, The Lord of the Rings in 1978 and Fire and Ice in 1983." Aside from the glaring fact that three movies are named, but only two release years given, there's this confusing phrase: "simultaneously directed a number of animated films". Which films--the ones mentioned later in the sentence? And others? What's the total number? If the sentence as a whole is to make any sense, he must have directed at least Wizards, The Lord of the Rings, and Fire and Ice simultaneously. Did he really? And if he really did, then just state so clearly.
    • That is a mistake made by a copyeditor. The "simultaneously" part refers to Heavy Traffic, Coonskin and Hey Good Lookin'. I removed the word. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • "Early life and television work" section--"With American involvement in the Vietnam War at its peak and the political climate of the United States on the rise..." Oy (or is it Ai ai ai?)--"The political climate of the United States on the rise..."

These are the sort of things that go beyond the kind of little copyedit tweaking I could dive in and do right now. I wish I had the time to go over these things with the focus they need, but I don't at the moment. You either need to give the whole article a rigorous re-read for these and other problems, or enlist a copyeditor who can really commit themselves to working with you on it. Good luck! I'll check back in a few days.DocKino (talk) 05:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I further edited that sentence in the lead. What you had essentially said, "Bakshi made his debut feature film.... [He] then directed a number of animated films." Very awkward flow. If you want to change it further from what I've done, that's fine.

Again, I think there's the makings of a strong article here, but a lot of work remains to be done, and it doesn't look like it's happening. Just staying, again, near the beginning of the article:

  • In the lead section, we have this: "[Bakshi] is perhaps best-known for his fantasy work [including] Fire and Ice in 1983. His directorial career declined after the 1981 release American Pop". Yes, it's technically possible to make one of your best-known works after your career declines, but this is awkward and confusing. Needs to be taken apart and recast.
  • In "Early life and television work", we find out he directed four shorts for Paramount in 1967: The Mini-Squirts, The Fuz, Marvin Digs and Mouse Trek. (In an awkward chronological structure, this comes a paragraph after a quote from 1971.) So what were these films like? Did they represent his break from the "kind of animation" he'd done in the past, or not? The chronological structure seems to imply they did; the titles seem to suggest they didn't. We need some historical description to clarify the matter.
  • Not in "Early life and television work": any mention of all the Terrytoons shorts directed by Bakshi and released in the early 1970s that one finds on IMDb. Check out these titles: The Ghost Monster, The Drifter, The Proton Pulsator, The Shocker, The Enlarger, The Duster, The Big Freeze. According to your chronology, he must have done all these for Terrytoons no later than 1966. Is that right? They sure don't sound like they starred Mighty Mouse, Heckle and Jeckle, Deputy Dawg, or Foofle. What are these films like? Why (assuming your career chronology is correct) did they sit around for half a decade or more before they were released?
    • No verifiable information can be found on these. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

A suggestion: I see that there's just one citation of Gibson and McDonnell's Unfiltered: The Complete Ralph Bakshi. It looks like some more time would be well spent with this book. Doing a Google Book Search, I can see there's a variety of books that describe the films mentioned above, though often not with full page views--a library trip may be in order. And have you made an attempt to recruit a copyeditor?DocKino (talk) 06:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Given the latest response by the nominator, I have no choice but to oppose. The nominator claims that "no verifiable information can be found" on the short films directed by Bakshi that were released in the late 1960s and early 1970s. This is false. I have already noted that a Google Book Search indicates that verifiable information is available on these films. The nominator also seems uninterested in accessing the major published text devoted to Bakshi's career. It is clear that FA-level research has not yet gone in to this article and, unfortunately, it now seems clear that there is no current intention to do the necessary work.DocKino (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Those "films" you mention are actually episodes of the TV series The Mighty Heroes. All of the significant, verifiable information is presented here. Secondly, Unfiltered is an art book. There is very little information that could be culled from the source that hasn't already been provided from other sources. Your attitude is perplexing. This article has been extensively researched. There's no further work that needs to be done. It should have been listed as a FA three nominations ago. (21:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC))
  • We're still left with this passage: "In 1967, Bakshi became head of the animation division of Paramount Pictures. Because of the political climate in the United States during this period, Bakshi felt that he could no longer continue to produce the same kind of animation as he had in the past." This description is supported by a following statement of Bakshi's, dated 1971. The result is confusing and unclear. Does Bakshi's work at Paramount reflect his feeling "that he could no longer continue to produce the same kind of animation as he had in the past"? Or is the work he produced at the studio along the same lines as the "kind of animation" he'd done "in the past" (and he left the studio partly as a consequence of his response to the political climate)? The matter needs to be clarified, and there are sources out there that appear to describe the work he did at Paramount that have not been accessed.DocKino (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And here's something else (we're still in the very early part of the article): Lead section says, "Bakshi moved to Famous Studios in 1967". "Early life and television work" subsection says, "In 1967, Bakshi became head of the animation division of Paramount Pictures". Please reconcile and/or clarify the terminology here.DocKino (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in the "Early life and television work" subsection, what does "producing animation his own way" mean? Please explicate or eliminate.DocKino (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the subsection ends with more confusion: "With producer Steve Krantz, Bakshi worked on a number of low budget television series, such as Rocket Robin Hood, which aired from 1966 to 1969, and Spider-Man, which aired from 1967 to 1970." This passage comes after the one in which you establish that he founded Ralph's Spot in 1969. So was he working on these two series with Krantz even before he founded Ralph's Spot (in which case they need to be introduced before Ralph's Spot)? Or did he begin work on these series only once Ralph's Spot had been organized (in which case the earlier run dates of the series need to be referred to in some other way)? Again, the answer is, at present, entirely unclear. You say you "requested and received multiple copyedits". That may be so, but they missed a lot.DocKino (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. Still a couple discrepancies between lead and main text to be dealt with--the first having to do with nomenclature, the second with dating:
  • Lead: "Bakshi moved to Famous Studios in 1967".
  • Main: "In 1967, Bakshi became head of the animation division of Paramount Pictures." [The link on "animation division" is insufficient to address the confusion readers are apt to experience. How about: "In 1967, Bakshi became head of Famous Studios, the animation division of Paramount Pictures." But there's another concern here: our article on Famous Studios indicates that its name had changed by 1967, so that by the time Bakshi joined it, it was called Paramount Cartoon Studios. Please verify the nomenclature and edit accordingly.]
  • Lead: "Through producer Steve Krantz, Bakshi made his debut feature film, Fritz the Cat, in 1972."
  • Main: "In 1971, Krantz produced Bakshi's first feature film, based on Robert Crumb's successful underground comic book Fritz the Cat."
Also, this passage needs a bit more cleanup: "In 1969, Bakshi founded his own studio, Ralph's Spot, establishing it as an alternative to mainstream animation houses and accelerating the advancement of female and minority animators. He also paid his employees a higher salary than any other studio at that time." Was Ralph's Spot "establish[ed]...as an alternative" in some way other than in the mentioned employment practices--that is in, say, visual style or subject matter? If so, please describe and cite. If not, recast something like this: "In 1969, Bakshi founded his own studio, Ralph's Spot, establishing it as an alternative to mainstream animation houses: he paid his employees a higher salary than any other studio at that time and accelerated the advancement of female and minority animators."DocKino (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it's not done. I asked, if there was a basis for stating the Ralph's Spot was founded to pursue alternative visual styles and subject matter, that a citation be provided. The source cited at the end of the sentence supports the claims about Bakshi's employment practices, but not these "alternative" style and content claims. In addition, the language you use to discuss those employment practices is too close to the language of the original source:

  • Article: "...accelerating the advancement of female and minority animators. He also paid his employees a higher salary than any other studio at that time."
  • Source: "he accelerated advancement of women and minority animators...and his company always paid better than any other studio at that time."

Please see this wonderful essay on the practice of proper paraphrasing and how to avoid inadvertent plagiarism: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches (see "Adapting sources: paraphrasing and summarizing" subsection). Then go through the article and see if there are other places where you've followed source text too closely.

You'll note I added the release date for Fritz the Cat--if we're going to refer to it as a 1972 film in the lead section, then 1972 has to appear with it at some point in the main text. I used the Michael Barrier article. Reading that article, we find some interesting facts, a couple of which contradict what appears in our Wikipedia article:

  • The description of one of the shorts Bakshi did at Paramount, Marvin Digs, might be worth dealing with. ([2])
  • Bakshi worked on Rocket Robin Hood even before founding Ralph's Spot. ([3])
  • Animation began on Fritz the Cat in June 1970, not 1971. ([4])

The claim that Fritz the Cat was "the first independent animated film to gross more than US$100 million at the box office" needs to be reworked. Professional discussions of the box office grosses of American films generally begin with their domestic grosses before moving on their worldwide grosses. When left unstated, the general assumption is that a box office figure is domestic. This figure, however, can only be worldwide and even then it is questionable (yes, the source is Variety, but it's a passing sentence in an obituary). Here are some other sources:

Ultimately, I think the claim about its worldwide gross needs to be both clarified and moderated. It also needs to be made clear that while, yes, the film was surprisingly successful on initial release, it made its very impressive money over the long haul.DocKino (talk) 22:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I reworked parts of the article, and added the mentions of his films at Paramount. The Variety article doesn't refer to the gross as being worldwide. It states that the film was the first independent animated film to gross more than $100 million. The reason that Variety is believed to have the most accurate figure here is because it is a major industry publication, while these other figures are given by scattered publications by authors whose research might not have been extensive or accurate. Variety has better access to the actual figures than Cohen, Lenburg, the Chorons or Moore. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
No way. You can't simply cite an obituary of the producer and ignore multiple published sources that shed a different light on the box office figure. The article at present leaves the impression that Fritz the Cat made over $100 million at the American box office. If it had, that would have made it the second-biggest film of 1972 (behind only The Godfather) and bigger than any film released in 1971. That's simply incredible for a film whose distribution and potential audience were limited to theaters that would show a film with an X rating. Take a look at this promo for the film that reproduces the Variety page giving the grosses for the week ending June 7, 1972, when the film hit #2 on the charts: since its release in April, it had made a total of $1.8 million at the domestic box office. And you want us to swallow a single obituary as a source for it clearing $100 million? If you put such faith in Variety, how about you do some real research, go to the library, and examine the actual box office charts for 1972/73.
Okay, done. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
You have requested in personal communication that I retract my opposition to this article's promotion. Why in the world would I do that? I have identified a host of errors, gaps, and confusions in the article over the past ten days and have barely gotten through a fifth of it so far. You have claimed, "There's no further work that needs to be done", when--despite all the fine effort you've put in--in fact it is abundantly clear that a lot of work remains to be done. On May 2, I made the following suggestion: "You either need to give the whole article a rigorous re-read for these and other problems, or enlist a copyeditor who can really commit themselves to working with you on it." You have quite plainly failed to do either. I'm exhausted. You have two reasonable avenues right now: (1) Withdraw this nomination and don't nominate the article again until it is up to snuff, or (2) <<deep breath>> Enlist a copyeditor who can really commit themselves to working with you on it. If you choose the former avenue, of course, our work on this page is done for the time being. If you choose the latter avenue, I am happy to revisit this article at the end of the week. For the moment, since you have so far chosen not to take the necessary major step to address the article's evident weaknesses, I have no intention of devoting any more of my time to it. If you do choose to enlist a dedicated copyeditor, please have that person communicate with me directly after they've worked through the entire article with you and I'll return here.DocKino (talk) 10:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But I have addressed the biggest issues, which were really minor. The article doesn't need any more work. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a and 1c. After careful review of the article (not for the first time), I concur with DocKino's assessment. The unfortunate pattern that has emerged here is paying lip service to reviewer concerns while vehemently disagreeing that any serious work needs to be completed. However, it has been demonstrated over the course of many, many nominations that more than surface fixes are needed. Suggest withdrawal to work with editors who are serious about thorough copyediting and examination of the research. --Laser brain (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the real pattern here is that reviewers like you take no effort in assessing the article, and even though the article is clearly up to snuff, you continue regurgitating the same assessment that was wrong the last time. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
This type of comment is inappropriate, and I strongly encourage you to strike it. While nominators are not required to act on all objections, they are expected to act in a calm and civil manner, without resorting to personalizing the issues. Karanacs (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I'm sorry but the prose is far from FA standard; there is redundancy and lack of logical flow. In my view, the article requires extensive third-party copy-editing. Of more concern, I am not convinced that the sources verify some of the points made. Please do not shoot the messenger.Graham Colm Talk 21:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have reviewed and re-reviewed the sources over and over again. Everything is properly verified. There have been several copyedits. Maybe you should try working on the prose yourself? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Thank you for your kind offer, but I have to ration my time here, and my priorities are virology articles, FAC reviews and admin duties. Graham Colm Talk 22:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is my opinion that you probably should not have commented on the prose if you didn't have the time to look at it yourself and fix the problems that you see. Another editor would not see the same problems you see, and it is likely that even after several copyedits, the specific elements of the article that you perceive to be flawed would still remain. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
You are doing your cause no favours with this beligerent attitude Ibaranoff. The prose is clearly not up to the standard required of an FA, and you would be well advised to take the advice that's been offered and find a good copyeditor to help. I will look at the article again once you think the current copyedit has been completed before giving my final opinion on this article. Right now though I would be opposing its promotion. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know why every editor that perceives any "attitude" on my part has a bit of attitude themselves? (By the way, there's a typo in your comment.) (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
"I would like to know why every editor that perceives any "attitude" on my part has a bit of attitude themselves?" Strange that, isn't it. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I read the article and found it interesting. I didn't find any major issues with the prose. Pergamino (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Copyediting is currently in process. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment — I think the copyedit process could be done here. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    • Please let me know when the copyedit has been completed. --Malleus Fatuorum 06:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've just spent a sizeable amount of time going through the nitty gritty of the prose, grammar, punctuation etc on this article. I cannot see any significant problems which would inhibit its progress. I'm open to any more suggestions, however, please could we be specific. Cite a particular section or sentence and I'll be happy to correct it, but comments that just say "it needs copyediting" aren't helpful without specifics. HJMitchell You rang? 16:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking just at the "Fritz the Cat and Heavy Traffic" subsection:

  • "Fritz the Cat featured the voice work of Skip Hinnant, Rosetta LeNoire, John McCurry, Phil Seuling, and Judy Engles, and it was made using a number of experimental animated film production techniques that Bakshi would continue to use throughout his career, including live-action footage, photographs and documentary-style recording techniques." Major run-on. Uses both "use/using" and "techniques" twice--each repetition is readily avoidable. Several entirely unnecessary words.
  • "According to Variety, the film was the first independent animated feature to gross more than US$100 million worldwide." Sure, according to a single Variety obituary. See my earlier notes. Differing WP:V-standard sources have been completely ignored, even in footnote.
  • "Reviews of the film were largely positive." Yet, of five reviews quoted or summarized, two are positive, one is mixed at best, and two are described as "mixed". That's largely mixed. And did the film receive not a single negative review that might be referenced?
  • Repeated bad punctuation and callout placement: everyone."[5]; // audacious",[5]; // back-to-back[21],
  • "In 1973, Bakshi began production on Heavy Traffic, a personal tale of inner-city street life." OK, but "personal" could mean several things. It could mean he wrote the tale. It could mean it had a lot of personal meaning for him. It could mean it was autobiographical. it would be helpful to the reader to be a bit clearer and more specific here.
  • "The film incorporated many of Bakshi's trademark filmmaking techniques from his debut." Oof. "Trademark" is very arguable--he'd only made one feature film to date. "Trademark" and "from his debut" are redundant--one is sufficient to make the point. The whole sentence is redundant--you say, just two paragraphs above, that Fritz the Cat "was made using a number of experimental animated film production techniques that Bakshi would continue to use throughout his career."
  • "During the production of the film, Bakshi sparked an instant friendship with producer Albert S. Ruddy (via a screening of The Godfather)." The structure of this sentence--in the context of the preceding two sentences of the paragraph--suggests incorrectly that Ruddy was the producer of Heavy Traffic.
  • The New York Times and The Hollywood Reporter each linked twice in same subsection.
  • "though it went on '...However, it is also an authentic...'" Use either "though" or the quoted "however"--not both.
  • "Thanks to Heavy Traffic, Ralph Bakshi became the first person in the animation industry since Walt Disney to have two financially successful films released back-to-back[21], despite the film being banned by the Film Censorship Board in the province of Alberta, Canada when it was originally released." Non sequitur. In 1973, the entire province of Alberta had a population about half that of the city of Chicago. It's hardly a shock that a film could be financially successful "despite" loss of access to such a small share of its potential market.

To the nominator: No more personal communications on this matter, please. I've got both the article and this discussion on my relatively small watchlist. I can see perfectly well what's going on. And what isn't.DocKino (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think DocKino's notes indicate that this needs more than a surface-level grammar audit, which is what it has received thus far. It appears that serious examination of content, flow, and cohesiveness is needed, as well as addressing the 1c concerns. --Laser brain (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2009 (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/Ralph_Bakshi/archive7&oldid=1208510526"