Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/How Brown Saw the Baseball Game/archive1


 * 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 User:Ian Rose 10:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC).

How Brown Saw the Baseball Game

 * Nominator(s):  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 16:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe this article satisfies WP:WIAFA, as I've buffed up the prose since the article passed its GA review. How Brown Saw the Baseball Game is a lost film from 1907 about a drunk guy watching some baseball. It's not incredibly long, but other featured articles about lost films aren't either. It's as comprehensive as it will probably ever get. Even if this fails the article will no doubt improve. I welcome all comments.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 16:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Feedback from Curly Turkey
I'm not a film person, so feel free to laugh at any of my feedback that makes this obvious.

Prose

 * Was the film a feature?
 * 350 ft, so no, it's a short.


 * "was reported as having been a success.": With the audience? Financial?  Critical?
 * The article just says "proves to be a veritable success."


 * "with the players running the bases backwards and the baseball flying back into the pitcher's hand.": see WP:PLUSING
 * Fixed.


 * "founded by film pioneer German Jewish-American Siegmund Lubin": that's quite a mouthful, and something about it doesn't sit right with me—is "German Jewish-American" relevant?
 * Reworded.


 * "Produced in the United States,": was Lubin not an American company? If not, this should be made clear earlier.
 * I removed it entirely.


 * "the identities of film's director and the actors": "the film's"?
 * How'd I miss that?


 * "and was shot in black-and-white": the wording seems to suggest colour may have been an option?
 * I reworded it, just to say that it's in black and white.


 * "the filmmakers used a form of trick photography in order to show the baseball players running the bases backwards." Was the "trick" not running the film backwards?
 * Probably, but the film's lost and the source just says that it was a form of trick photography.


 * "was released into theaters": is "into" a normal way to say this?
 * A quick GNews search indicates that it probably is.


 * "Advertisements for the film": Brown or Neighbors?
 * I moved it to the start of the paragraph avoid confusion.


 * "branded it as "such fun."", ""a veritable success."": Even if the original had a period there, logically the period should be outside the quotes.
 * Done.


 * "the previous year which centers": I think "and" would be better than "which"
 * I changed it to "a 1906 film."


 * "an office worker escaping his occupation": "escaping his occupation" sounds almost like he was quitting his job
 * Fixed.


 * "creating replicas of films by other studios": "replicas" sounds to me like near-perfect copies
 * Reworded.


 * "would be available in the public domain": rather, it would be (legally) in the public domain, but may not be available—it could be in the private hands, for example, of someone who doesn't like to share.
 * I reworded, but I wasn't exactly sure what to write. Let me know what you think of the new wording.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 01:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's the "available" that's the issue, and "legally" is redundant. I'd reword it to "If rediscovered the film would be in the public domain."  Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, done.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 03:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Image check

 * File:SiegmundLubin.gif has no information on where or when it was published, or who the copyright owner was; if published posthumously, there's a chance it may be under copyright.
 * It's probably public domain. I distinctly recall seeing it in an Archive.org scan from the 1900s. Let me see what I can do.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 01:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments, . I hope you enjoyed learning about this peculiar film.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 01:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What could be more enjoyable than reading about the wacky antics of drunks? Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * No citations to Wood & Pincus
 * There's one now.


 * FN8: page?
 * There was no page number on the scan, so I just added a link to the host site.


 * Erickson title should use endash. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks for the source review.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 18:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This is certainly short. But it's OK for a featured article since I think it's comprehensive enough. One thing holds me back, and that's the image. Have you clarified whether it's in pd yet? Beerest 2 talk 20:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll get to it.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 01:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you point me to the WP:FAs of lost films.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Gagak Item and Si Tjonat to name two.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 03:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I am concerned that an article with less than 4KB of prose could be a WP:FA. Aren't there cases where it is believed that there is just not sufficient PD content for a certain subject to be a FA? Can you give me a complete list of lost film FAs.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, this article is longer than Miss Meyers in prose, so there's no need to worry. I'll drum up a list tomorrow.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 03:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Note -- nom withdrawn per request. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's disappointing. The only issue I had was the tagging on the image. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 06:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.