Talk:A Lady's Name

Thank you for releasing my movie entry. You stated, “The article has been assessed as Start-Class.” I have some questions regarding that status.

Silent movies are an art form. There are only so many objective facts you can say about a nondescript silent movie until your content becomes subjective and therefore encyclopedic.

“good content but is weak in many areas” “Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic.” Could you help me with this area, totally not sure where this exists? “Frequently, the referencing is inadequate, although enough sources are usually provided to establish verifiability.” I have quoted six references from reliable movies sites including the Museum of Modern Art, Sanford University, IMDB, TCM, AFI, ALLMOVIE, SILENT ERA, INTERNET ARCHIVE. If need be, I could add a Library of Congress link. I also provide three external links. All are verified. In my opinion, quoting more magazine articles becomes redundant. I can’t include reviews since they are all subjective. The article also, in my opinion, provides amble Wikipedia links to cast, crew, director, writers if the reader needs to explore their personalities further.

I would also like to point out – this was a nondescript silent movie. It was not a major film. There are no amusing anecdotes, impartial revenue figures, unbiassed attendance figures, fancy premieres, screen tests, unique locations, legacy, sound problems, distinctive music, production problems, casting stories, enduring culture changes or catchy sayings. There are no books written about this movie. The movie is over 100 years old. Everyone who had any connection to this movie is dead including most people who even saw this movie when it was first released.

Simply put – this move is not a “Gone With Wind” caliber film. Few are!

This movie is a place marker in film history.

Mtjannetta (talk) 04:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)