Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kroger Babb

Kroger Babb
I began work on this article, a self-nomination, at the beginning of this year. Since then, I've been putting my interlibrary loan librarian on notice with the amount of books I've been able to find on the subject, and had a friend send me materials from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Library. The article has been through a peer review, two separate independent reviews, and has been promoted to Good Article status. As for the FA standards:
 * 1) It is well written, and comparable to other FAs in tone in my opinion.  It is quite possibly as comprehensive as can be following the amount of research I've done at this time, and I'll expand on that in a moment.  With two dozen individual references spanning five-plus decades and multiple citations from many of them, it's very well cited.  I believe it's neutral, and there hasn't been any edit warring other than myself and my typo-weilding fingers.
 * 2) MOS is followed, as far as I can tell.
 * 3) The images are descriptive and appropriate, and have been reviewed by three other people prior to this nomination for relevance and proper tags.
 * 4) The length is a hair under the 32k mark, mostly due to keeping things concise.  It would not be our longest FA by any stretch, but obviously wouldn't be the shortest.  The article is of an appropriate length given the subject and available information.

According to the GA review, the reviewer was "truly amazed by the easily-accessible tone...and meticulous references," saying that it "is the sort of article to which all others should aspire." Furthermore, going into this creation, the only other detailed web reference available was an article at Reason Magazine by Joe Bob Briggs, and I believe, in my reviews, that this article may be the most comprehensive and factual biography of Kroger Babb on the internet. I'm hoping the community agrees with the assessment. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Whew. There are probably other issues, but would you say this would give you a little to start with? :-) AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * First, good work, clearly a good article. But you do still have work to do before it becomes the best it can be. As I may have written before: remember, you asked for this. :-).
 * Indeed! Thanks, and thoughts are inline.
 * Wikilinks could be in better places. For example, under History, Kroger is around his nickname, though it leads to the article about the store, which is mentioned in the same sentence. In the header American is not linked to United States, though that is probably its sense; it is instead linked to in front of Library of Congress, from where it could probably be removed safely, since there is only one Library of Congress (at least only one we have an article about). Hollywood Reporter should be linked where it first appears - I know you link to it from the refs, but that is at the bottom of the article, not first. Uncle Tom's Cabin doesn't get a wikilink? BoxOffice has the second mention linked, not the first. Mildred, his wife, isn't linked the first mention, then linked twice in the personal life section.
 * I get it. I think I fixed most of these.  Uncle Tom's Cabin in particular wasn't wikilinked at first mention for consistency, but I worked around it quite well, I think.
 * Good. Two more: the "IRS figures" link to IRS should probably just be around IRS, and Common-law marriage should link there, not just to Common-law.
 * Done and done.
 * Refs after commas are all over the place. Personally, I think they look better after periods, citing an entire sentence. I'm not sure if the style guide says so outright, but I think it at least implies it. This is probably the worst offender, one sentence with three clauses each cited separately: "The third highest grossing film of its decade,[6] Mom and Dad, according to Babb, made $63,000 for every $1,000 the original investors contributed,[7] and the Los Angeles Times estimated that the film grossed anywhere between $40 million and $100 million dollars.[4]" I think it would just look better with the 3 refs all together at the end. An alternative is to break up the long sentence into several shorter ones.
 * I agree on the refs, but the MOS wants all refs after punctuation. I had someone fly through and move all of them on me.  As for the broken up references, I had a professor once who pretty much broke me of what you're asking for.  I'll change it if it's make or break, but I find it more useful to know exactly what references what.
 * I can accept that.
 * "exploitation" seems used in lots of places, mostly unsourced, and it's a pretty negative term. Since he's not alive, it's not quite as crucial we not defame the guy per WP:BLP, but since this is aiming to be a Featured Article, an example to others, sourcing it strongly is still a good idea. Who uses the term in reference to him and his work? Surely he didn't.
 * From what I've been able to read, noth from Friedman and various articles and bios, it certainly wasn't negative to them. It's used all over the place to describe the films and the work, it's entirely normal and I'd probably fight for the use if he was still alive, given the amount of information I have.  With that said, I did perhaps overuse it a bit and cut back.
 * Then source it, please. A couple of sentences that say either that exploitation was a commonly used term, and not considered especially negative, or is an accepted scholarly term now, in either case with a ref or two. I believe you completely, but to someone who is not familiar with the subject it sounds like an attack. I imagine at least one of your sources that use the term in their title will have a section that says something like that that.
 * Sourced. It was hard choosing one, heh, so I went with the guy who did the films with him.
 * So helped actually originate the term? Very good.
 * Also, you do seem to be overusing the term. By the third repetition, I at least felt that I got the point; unless it's unusually exploitative, you probably can just write "film" at least half the time after the first few mentions.
 * Fixed.
 * Actually you seem to only have replaced one mention (with B-movie). But I won't press the point.
 * No problem. I think I replaced 4 where it felt odd.
 * Similarly or more so for the last sentence in the header: "intended to titillate audiences rather than educate them, with the goal of maximizing profits through the use of marketing gimmicks." That sounds pretty defamatory. If he were alive, that could be a libel lawsuit waiting to happen. He's not, but still - either tone it down, or give some pretty strong citations.
 * Essentially, at least half of the citations offered back this up, and it's not really defamatory at all. I will take a look in my texts at home and see if I can't move a reference up to make it clear that this is entirely normal, but it's pretty standard - that's why they peddled this crap to begin with. d;-)  I see why it's confusing to someone who's unfamiliar, though, so I'll see what I can do with it.
 * The exploitation reference makes it good enough, I guess.
 * "or due to his father's preference for B. H. Kroger coffee[4] (as claimed by biographer Kenneth Turan)." Is the ref about/from Turan? If so, I'd move the ref after the period at the end there, otherwise it seems you're citing the coffee, or his father or something else ambiguous.
 * Fixed.
 * "at one point gaining a mention in Ripley's Believe It Or Not for refereeing a record number of youth sports games" That's pretty impressive, actually -- can you be more specific? How many, what kind of sport, at what age?
 * What's written is what I know. I've been unable, to this point, find out exactly what he referreed or what edition of Ripley's he was in.  The day I find it will be a wonderful one for me, but for now, the mention in a number of publications is all I have, and what I referenced with my tag here was the most detailed one I had.
 * Accepted.
 * "While taking jobs in sportswriting and reporting at a local newspaper in his 20s, he achieved success following his promotion to publicity manager at the Chakeres-Warners movie theaters" This is confusing - what do the newspaper jobs have to do with the movie theater? If nothing, split the sentence.
 * Fixed, I think. Any extra pointers on how to handle this would be nice.
 * Good enough.
 * "In one promotion, he gave two bags of groceries to paying ticketholders in the theaters.[2] These experiences led him to the exploitation film business." Again, seems like a non sequitur. I know you're trying to link the publicity manager job to the film business, which at least sounds reasonable (if someone else says so, otherwise it could be WP:OR) but the groceries sentence is getting in the way. It seems you're saying that giving away groceries is the path to lewd films. "Ma'am, let me show you how to really use that cucumber..."
 * Well, the intent is that his unique promotional style at the theater (using an example of the groceries) lead him to the bigger exploitation film biz. Maybe it's not clear to an outsider, but it's not meant to be a non-sequitor as much as an example of what he did.  If I had more examples to give, I'd add them in, but that's all I've got.
 * Good enough.
 * "Babb joined Cox and Underwood" When? Seems important as the start of his main career, if you can find a date, or at least a year, that would be good.
 * I have an approximate date, which I added.
 * Good.
 * "Dust to Dust, which was a reworking of another movie, High School Girl with a childbirth scene at the end." Which film had the childbirth scene? DtD or HSG? Was the reworking mainly to add the childbirth scene, to remove it, or to do something else? Was it a particularly or unusually explicit childbirth scene? Was this unusual at the time?
 * Just a random medical reel, pretty bland in the grand scheme of things. I've clarified the sentence here.
 * Good.
 * "parting ways with Babb,[2] so Babb began his own company, Hygienic Productions." Does the ref really cite parting ways without citing how he started HP? If so, then you probably want to find a cite that says that the start was a direct result of the parting ways, otherwise it's WP:OR to say so. If you can't find a cite, then take out the so "...parting ways with Babb. Babb began his own company, HP". That basically implies the same thing, without leaving you open to accusations of OR. On the other hand, if the ref does mention that parting ways to HP, then move it after the period. Yes, it's nitpicking. Featured Article, brilliant prose, a high target to hit.
 * Nitpick away, seriously. I know what you mean, so I've adjusted the sentence accordingly.
 * Good.
 * "Babb applied what he had learned from watching fellow presenters to the operation of Hygienic Productions, opening a headquarters in Wilmington, Ohio and hiring booking agents and advance salespeople along with out-of-work actors and comedians to act as presenters of the films.[1]" Consider splitting into two sentences: "Babb applied what he had learned ... operation of HP. He opened a headquarters in..." Otherwise you're writing that he had learned from fellow presenters that you should open a headquarters in Wilmington, Ohio. (Unless of course that is the main lesson he learned; I didn't read the sources you cite. "Boy, if you want to produce titilation in the 1920s, Ohio is the place to be. It's the cradle of sin, a den of iniquity...")
 * I think you're describing The Oh in Ohio. Anyhow, fixed.
 * Good. Oh, yes, good. Oh.
 * "Babb in the film presenting business" - I vaguely remember some advice somewhere not to repeat the article title in section headers unnecessarily
 * Those six words haunted me for a week. I have no clue how else to change it, but I don't consider it incredibly awkward.  Suggestions?
 * Here it is: Manual of Style: "Avoid unnecessary words or redundancy in headings: avoid a, an, and the, pronouns, repeating the article title, and so on." Suggestions? Ranging from the dry to the titilatting: "Film presenter"; "Film presentation style"; "Film marketing tactics" "Showmanship"; "Luring crowds" ...
 * Fixed this.
 * "his distribution overheard near 7%" overhead?
 * Fixed.
 * Mom and Dad seems to have an article of its own, yet you write more about it here than there. It should be the other way around. Here, you can write more about its impact on Kroger, or vice versa, but the plot should really be there. Also, you should put a See: or for the main article or something reference there.
 * The only reason that's true is because, somewhat ironically, I haven't gotten to it yet. This is true now, it won't be true by the end of November if I have any say in the matter.  Until then, I'd prefer not to draw more attention to the stubby, incomplete article, although I don't know where to put the  thing anyway.
 * Unfortunately, I think you're gonna have to bite the bullet and expand it a bit, and maybe put the mainarticle thing somewhere appropriate. The way you have written the Krober Babb header, it seems like this film is his main reason for notability: "he is best known for ..." - if there is a single external article that needs to be made better, this is it. However, expanding the M&D article doesn't have to be that hard, just copy paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of this film presenter section there completely, with their references, should be under 15 minutes of work. It's not plagiarism if you're copying from yourself. :-)
 * Expanded and reworded a bit. I've adjusted it further, and the two are similar, but now I ahve a lot more to work with at the new article.
 * Good. The M&D article is actually pretty good now as well. (It still has a few of the issues mentioned here that you've fixed here, but it doesn't have to be to FA quality for this one to be.)
 * About that plot description, you seem to be overusing euphemisms a bit - "goes all the way" "her clothes no longer fit". "Has sex" and "pregnant" are more concrete and shorter.
 * I'm a little opposed to those changes because of the way the film handled those issues. If it's make or break, I'll change them, but the idea here is to get a feel for the way the films approached the subject.  Perhaps some wikilinking would work as a compromise on this?
 * We can do compromise, however I followed your Joe Bob Briggs link, and here is what he says: "...life ruined by pregnancy...Elliot Forbes, an "eminent sexual hygiene commentator,"...venereal disease and pregnancy information... sex education" ; Briggs, at least, seems to use the words sex and pregnancy in this context. I would think your goal would be more directly satisfied the way Briggs does, by just saying it outright: "the film would resume with our heroine sick to her stomach, sleeping late, and discovering that her clothes no longer fit her. ( The actors never use the word "pregnant." )"
 * Fixed with wikilinking and some clarity from the book.
 * Good.
 * 'letters from mayors of "none-too-distant" cities' - why is n-t-d in quotes?
 * That's direct from where it's sourced from.
 * You are quoting one rare hyphenated word? If you really want to fight to the death for it, I'll give in, but I do think "nearby" is better, "principle of least surprise" and all.
 * Fixed.
 * "wallpapering a small town with ads" - literally? In other words, he specifically used posters, and very many of them, in many places, as opposed to a few prominent posters, or word of mouth, or newspaper or other ads? Then you may want to say so, otherwise it's unclear. In fact, your big quote immediately following says "sending tabloid heralds" which seems to contradict the "wallpapering" implication.
 * I wasn't sure it was contradictory, but I adjusted the wording anyway. Thanks, Thesaurus.com!
 * Loading, huh? OK, I guess that's better.
 * I changed it to overwhelm to match the source better.
 * "causing a stir, sticking true" Mixed metaphors, overuse of cliched expressions.
 * Fixed. Remnants from an earlier version.
 * "The film became ... ubiquitous that Time Magazine...In a similar vein, Babb wrote in his pressbook for Karamoja that "When a stupid jerk tries to outsmart proven facts, he should be in an asylum, not a theater."[1]" How is that "in a similar vein" to either being ubiquitous or what Time wrote? And again, as above, what's the word "vein" doing there? "Similarly" is more precise, shorter, and less cliched.
 * Fixed, I think.
 * Partly - you got rid of "vein", which is good, but I still don't understand how the Babb quote is related to the Time quote. How is "similarly" appropriate? In fact, I don't even understand what the Babb quote means - what are the "proven facts"? The section seems to be talking about how he marketed his films, and "outsmart proven facts" seems to have nothing to do with it. Who was the "stupid jerk"? Whom was he addressing with the statement, who was supposed to read it? What's a pressbook? (Ah, I see you wrote an article for pressbook - wikilink to it, please.)
 * Fixing the wikilink (it's linked in the image, and I'm reversing that). The "stupid jerk" was general, not linked to anyone specific as much as the general ignoramus. I think I'm just going to move the line altogether. . The line has been moved to an entirely better area.
 * Much better, I understand what he was talking about now.
 * "hundreds of Elliot Forbes's" - I think 's means possessive, not plural.
 * Fixed, I think. I may have changed that about 53453 times over the course of this.
 * Elliot Forbes/Jesse Owens - please clarify - there was no real Elliot Forbes, but there was the real Jesse Owens? Or were these JO impersonators?
 * Real Jesse Owens. I think this is fixed.
 * It is fixed, but wow. I would think an extra sentence would be appropriate, given that possibly the most famous black athlete of all time, certainly of that time, had sunken to being a pitchman for semi-fraud. Was he extremely well paid? Desperate? Down on his luck? Did he actually believe he was helping the community by preaching sex ed? My oh my.
 * I'll see if I can track anything down to expand on it a bit, regardless. It was rather shocking to me, too.
 * "at the presentation of the religious Prince of Peace" - religious film Prince of Peace, I think. :-)
 * Ding. Fixed.
 * "Babb would sensualize the advertising to highlight lead actress Lila Leeds" - more specific. Would present pictures of her with few clothes on? Surrounded by flowers? In a harem costume? What?
 * Adjusted this. I know why this happened, I think it's fixed.
 * "As well as being at the forefront of the battles over censorship and the motion picture censorship system, the exploitation genre faced numerous other challenges during the 1940s and 1950s.[1]" You can't end a paragraph like that and not refer to it again! Either strike the sentence, or tell us what the other challenges were, please. Do you know the joke "How do you keep a moron in suspense?" I never found out the punchline...
 * Fixed, I think.
 * Presented by the Hollywood Rotary Club, the award was presented in honor of his accomplishments over the years prior.[10]" Presented is used twice in the same sentence.
 * Not anymore
 * The Later Films section seems to go back to films that appeared in the earlier section: Prince of Peace, She Shoulda Said no. Or maybe the earlier section has too much about films in the later section. Anyway, if you want to divide them by time period made, then you should do so.
 * This is a difficult one. I can't remove the references before because of the context they give to his style of presentation, but it makes no sense to remove them entirely from the bottom, either, because they're worth having their own description in those cases.  I did this as a compromise for myself between the two.
 * I understand now, after your explanation below.
 * "Babb, following the success of Mom and Dad, renamed his company to the more general Hallmark Productions... He would later expand his operations to a larger distribution company, named "Hallmark's Big-6."[11]" - either quote a company name, or don't, but don't quote one and not the other. I believe not quoting is the preferred style, but ... don't quote me. :-)
 * Fixed.
 * "According to Babb, "Nothing's hopeless if it's advertised right," and associates agreed, stating that Babb "could take any piece of junk and sell it."[4]" Associates? What associates? This seems to be the only mention. It's a good line, but if you should be more specific, at least say "Fred Jones, an associate" or something.
 * That's as specific as the newspaper got. I had the same reaction, but there's not a name attached, but it still seems relevant.
 * Accepted.
 * "Karamoja proved to be less controversial than many of his other films and grossed poorly compared to his earlier productions, and would ultimately lose money in a similar way to his other less shocking fare.[1]" How about having a separate sentence or even section about the fact that his less shocking films lost money?
 * I think I've fixed this.
 * "Babb instead focused on one scene of the film with female nudity, used a photo of Leeds in a showgirl outfit, and renamed the film to She Shoulda Said No," Ah, that answers my question about "sensualized" above, but I think it underscores the point about not splitting up the writing about the films in the article. If you want to have one whole section about how the films were marketed, that would be fine, but if you are splitting them up by film production, then be consistent.
 * See, my thought process was more to worry about marketing and promotion and his style in one area, and the actual films in another. Mom and Dad is an obvious difference to this due to the importance of the film to the article and his style with the references, but the idea was to keep the marketing stuff in one place.  Thoughts?
 * I understand now. The Later films is about the specific films, chronologically, the Film presenting is about his marketing style in general. Renaming the sections would help. You may want to consider putting them in the other order, given that the History section is also chronological, which would keep that flow. That would require renaming Later films to just Films, moving Mom and Dad into the top of the Films section, and a bit of more minor rewriting work. I'll accept it if you don't.
 * All of this is fixed, I finally figured out what you were getting at.
 * "According to Friedman, Babb's presentation of the film two nights a week at midnight made more money than any other films earned over a full run...The success of Mom and Dad was never repeated for Babb," These two consecutive sentences seem to contradict each other.
 * The intent was that Mom and Dad was an amazingly overwhelming success, and no others cam close. I think I've adjusted this, but a reread didn't strike me as all that contradictory.
 * If She Shoulda Said No earned more money than any other films, then it earned more than Mom and Dad, right?
 * It didn't. Is it really coming across this way? Never mind, I clarified the section you were referring to.
 * Father Bingo - what was the point, then? Did he make money from not making a film somehow?
 * The point is that he kept making reference to this film that was probably never going to happen. As I have an actual poster for the unmade film as well as three separate instances of the film being mentioned, it seemed worth noting.  I still think it does.
 * No, it's notable, I'm just not sure how he profited from this "vaporware". Did he get publicity? If so, a few words should say so. John Waters's article implies he did it to get back at the clergy - if that was the main reason, again, a few words.
 * Okay. I'll expand a bit when I get to my resources. Expanded.
 * I'm still not sure how he benefited from this, though it is interesting nonetheless.
 * "promoting the use of women's clubs" - how is that? To join, to advertise through? If the latter, how?
 * Clarified.
 * Better, though "promoting ... to expand ... promotion" is a bit repetitive.
 * How did I miss that? Fixed.
 * "advocated old-style promotion techniques." Which were what? The semi-criminal things he was doing with the many Elliot Forbes?
 * I don't know how to fix this. A good chunk of this article involves some of those techniques, how do you suggest I reference them?
 * Not as much reference, as explicitly explain what you or he meant by "old-style". "advocated promotion techniques similar to those he used for his films, which he called 'old-style promotion techniques'". The alternative is "the use of 'old-style promotion techniques', such as sandwich boards, stentorian hawkers, children with posters, unlike the semi-legal methods he actually used to promote his films." Considering this seems to have been a somewhat slippery character, I wouldn't be surprised by either interpration.
 * Adjusted. Hard to do with the sources, went straight to the horse's mouth.
 * Good!
 * "One of these schemes was his "Astounding Swedish Ice Cream Diet," where Babb would eat ice cream three times a day and lose one hundred pounds in forty five days.[2]" Wait, I have to hear more about this. Was he so amazingly overweight that he could claim to want to lose 100 lbs? That would kill most slightly or even moderately overweight people. And the "he" troubles me - how does he make money by him losing weight? Surely he marketed the diet to other people who wanted to lose weight?
 * I hadn't mentioned his weight at all, so I've clarified this. Again, all I have is what I'm told on this one.
 * Hrr. Troublesome - I still can't understand the way this would make him money. Normally you market a diet plan by saying "look, this worked, I tested it, here's my evidence". It's normally not too effective to say "pay me money first for this plan, then I'll test it and see if it works."
 * Properly adjusted.
 * Good!
 * The drunk driving charge paragraph seems apropos of nothing (to use a cliche). It doesn't seem to have affected him much, wasn't particularly notable, and doesn't help the flow of the personal life section. Unless you want to add a series of incidents about him and alcohol, I'd dump it.
 * Amongst my clippings are close to a dozen stories on the matter. It was a fairly newsworthy event, which is why I included it.  It's bizarrely negative compared to the rest of the article, so I wouldn't feel too badly about removing it, but I was going for comprehensive on this one.
 * How was it newsworthy? Was he considered a celebrity at the time, and the reasonably everyday thing became newsworthy due to his involvement? Like Mel Gibson's recent arrest? If so, then just add a sentence saying so, and it will be worth it. Something like "The tabloids of the day covered the celebrity drunk driving arrest extensively. [123][456]".
 * Done.
 * retire in 1977 at age 70[19]" Needs a period.
 * Fixed.
 * "leaving his wife, Mildred, a son, and five grandchildren.[7]" Err - first time son and grandchildren are mentioned. Did they live with them? If not, saying he left them probably isn't the best. I propose, instead, finding when the son was born, and writing that in the paragraph about his marriage. The grandchildren I'm not sure about - maybe a separate sentence? "At the time of his death, he had 5 grandchildren."
 * I have found nothing about his kid(s?) or grandkids. They're mentioned in the two obits I have, neither by name, and that's it.  It seems almost crass not to mention it, would a separate sentence be worth it or should I just excise it entirely?
 * Grr. That's unfortunate. That he left descendants is certainly important to the biography. Leave it, I guess. Separate question, though - you say it was a "common law" marriage, which implies they never actually had a ceremony, then you call her his wife. So which was it? If it was common-law, but then legally recognized, I imagine that should be worth a couple of words.
 * I really like the story of how he met Mildred.
 * "Babb worked in various areas of the film industry, both in traditional fare and in the exploitation area." That seems like the exploitation area is just behind the fence and to the right of the big green building. How about "Babb worked in traditional films as well as in the exploitation genre."? And which of the following list are considered which? Also, how about writing something about traditional films elsewhere in the article as well? So far it only mentions the exploitation stuff.
 * Clarified better. Many of these films lack the proper information at this point to seciton them out that way, a future goal is to get a more complete filmography, but that's near impossible.
 * New one: "Babb would eventually sell the rights to Mom and Dad, as well as his stake in Modern Film Distributors. The properties were sold to" - how about combining these, so: "Babb would eventually sell the rights to Mom and Dad, as well as his stake in Modern Film Distributors, to"? Not a big deal if you don't like it.
 * No, much better. I adapted that and fixed it.
 * Unnecessary comma in the sentence: "Babb's two former partners with Modern Film,[2] would continued to showcase Mom and Dad around the United States."
 * New one: The header just calls him a film producer, but the filmography mentions he produced several important TV shows. Also, I personally would add the John Waters article line about "my idol" there, as another mark of notability, but that's taste I guess.
 * Fixed the headers, and as much as I want to add the Waters info, too, I can't make it fit in the prose. Maybe I can work it into his article...
 * One more new one: I notice in your references with external links, you make the name of the magazine the link. The example in WP:CITE and Embedded Citations implies that the link should go around the title of the article. At least that's the way I've always been doing it. :-)
 * I like your way much better, and fixed them all.
 * New one: Move the ref from "The Idea Factory" after the punctuation.
 * Thank you VERY much. Let me know what else you got. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * More than half of the issues have been dealt with, the rest are left, a few issues are expanded, and a few more have been added. Good job. Deal with these, and I'll strongly support. Well done. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I love what you've done. Thank you so much for the help, let me know what you think. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you've got them all, or close enough that the ones left are nitpicks. This is a very interesting article, completely covering the life and work of a notable character, who was a certain celebrity in his time, and left a legacy (much though we may wish he hadn't). It is backed by good sources, well cited, thorough, and well written. It has even spawned interesting, well written, useful cross-linked articles. Strong support. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not to mention you've done more to improve my own writing abilities in the last three days than anyone has in the last 3 years, so thanks on a number of levels. I appreciate all the help.  BTW, one of the times I laughed the most while reading A Youth in Babylon was the story of how he met his wife.  It seems so completely appropriate.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * When I first came across this article as a Good Article candidate, I was immediately taken aback by its proficient style, form, and rhetoric. Simply an amazingly written article on a worthy subject   hoopydink  Conas tá tú? 01:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Support, with a few quibbles.

Anyhow, great work taking an obscure subject and giving it full treatment. A very interesting read. Marskell 11:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I wonder if "Film presentation techniques" shouldn't have sub-headlines. A lot is jammed in there.
 * I thought about it, but couldn't come up with a logical way to do it. If you have any ideas, by all means, I'll be glad to take 'em.
 * There is some excess langauge. "Her review of Mom and Dad referred to the film as a "cheap, mislabeled morality play,"[19] causing Babb and Horn to discuss the film and strike up a conversation." The redundancy should be obvious there. There numberous examples like "based around the idea of selling...". I tried to eliminate some of this in copy-editing, but you might go back and look for others.
 * Heh, I don't know why I didn't notice that. I'll give it another quick one over.
 * Just a note, I'm pretty sure this is taken care of now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Support - I found this a very comprehensive, well written article about an esoteric member of the film industry. I know a lot about film, but had never heard of him and learned a lot. This, to me, seems what FAs should do: teach us about subjects and people we might not otherwise encounter. Jeffpw 21:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks okay but I have a few nitpics:
 * The explanation of the travelling exploitation film is a bit jumbled, in my opinion. It explains it all eventually, but for the first 5-10 paragraphs it kind of leaves the uninformed reader wondering exactly what a travelling exploitation film is, mentioning it numerous times before actually explaining it... I dunno, does that seem a bit backwards? Maybe a basic definition should be given early in the article to make it more clear.
 * I think I've dealt with this a little better.
 * I may be missing something, but the article doesn't seem to sufficiently explain Babb's role in the whole "Mom and Dad" operation, and the other similar ones. He was running it, sending the presenters out, using them as salesmen for the films and books he was selling? How much presenting did he do personally? I'm not sure the article coherently explains this entirely.
 * I've expanded on this a little more, good catch.
 * (minor nitpic) Would a grocery (Krogers) really have been called a "supermarket" in the 1910s as the article says? According to the OED (the other OED...) the term did not appear in print until the 1930s. I realize the source might say supermarket, but simply saying "grocery" would be more accurate and less distracting to (at least this) reader.
 * I had no idea, go figure. I'm with you, and I changed it.
 * Does there really need to be an inline citation for every claim in the "works" section? It's very distracting visually and since these are almost all just from the IMDB page (directly or interectly) they don't seem like very controversial claims, if anyone wants to verify them it should be easy enough for them to do so without the inline cites.--W.marsh 19:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Too much better than not enough, but I fixed it a bit. It's less obtrusive now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * support per above. Interesting and well-written article on an obscure but fascinating person. --W.marsh 02:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The whole article needs a prose audit. Can you locate someone else from the edit history of a similar FA to look at it? Tony 07:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. I'm surprised to find obvious problems in the lead:
 * I struggle with leads. No lie, it's the hardest part of anything for me to write.
 * What does "with root in the medicine show tradition" mean?
 * It means essentially what it says - his style of presentation had root in the medicine show tradition. I don't think the article will lose much if I take it out, but if you can explain the problem with more detail...
 * Is "presentation" of a film the right wording? He was a producer, not a projectionist at a cinema.
 * No, presentation is entirely the correct word. While he's listed as  the producer, he's best known for how he presented the film, which is what's detailed throughout the article.
 * "Babb was involved in the production and marketing of a large number of films and television shows over his career, each being presented with his favorite motto in mind,..."—Again, "presented" is unclear, and "each being presented" is not, strictly, grammatical. Remove "over his career" as redundant.
 * As I understand leads, they are supposed to attempt to summarize the article. If the presentation stuff is unclear later in the article, please point that out for me.
 * "a large number of" = "many"?
 * Changed.
 * "was involved in", then "was involved with" a sentence later—inconsistent and repetitive.
 * Fixed.
 * "intended to titillate audiences rather than educate them, with the goal of ..."—Do the first two words and the last phrase mean the same thing?
 * Fixed.
 * The article has been given a fairly thorough audit from start to finish by a number of people. If you have further issues, I'm very interested in hearing them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I said the whole article needS (present, not past tense) a prose audit. Based on the problems in the lead, it will take a good copy-editor an hour or two. The number of people who've already tried to fix it is irrelevant.
 * So are you basing the whole article on the lead, or on the whole article? You can say it "needs" it, but it certainly can't be fixed if you can't tell me what you're pointing at.
 * Can you explain exactly what "presentation" and "present" mean when applied to a film producer. The Phrase Checker shows quite a different usage (akin to projectionist). The word is wrongly used in a section title, too. "new film presentation operation" is a mystery to me: what exactly does it mean? How do the readers work it out? Later, we have "noted his success with film exploitation,[6] a term that many in the business would embrace." Here, "exploitation" should be in quotes, since it's a non-standard usage.
 * Actually, exploitation is a standard usage for this type of film. Furthermore, the presentation aspect, as noted above, is detailed within the rest of the article. I do not understand your objection here.
 * "Its roots" would be idiomatic; what you have at present is not.
 * Suggestion?
 * Do we really need "sexual intercourse" linked? We presumably speak English; likewise for dictionary terms such as "pregnant".
 * I was asked to link them, I have no problems removing such links if you're strongly opposed to it.
 * "spawned a number of imitators that eventually flooded the market"—What, the imitators themselves flooded the market, or their films did so?
 * Fixed.
 * "Babb, following the success of Mom and Dad, renamed his company Hallmark Productions." Clumsy word order. (Start with "Following".) Why are no years provided in that paragraph?
 * Because there are no verifiable years to include. I've taken care of your suggestion regarding the word order, however.
 * It's certainly not up to FA standards in terms of the writing. Tony 13:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Then, again, please let me know what I can act upon to fix it. As it's been through numerous prose reviews and you're the only person with an objection at this point, I would like to overcome them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A professional standard of writing is required by the rules. Go to FAs on similar/related topics and research the edit histories to learn who was responsible for improving the prose, particularly during FAC. Ask one or more of these people to help; show them that you're familiar with their work. If they resists, suggest sections for them to do. Other copy-editors may be willing to help; do you have a list? I do, but I don't usually give out names. Tony 14:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, and all available review I've had so far indicates it meets this standard. If you have issues with certain sections, let me know.  If you know of someone who can do the review of the prose that you approve of, let me know.  I'm willing to work, but I'm not getting much to work with. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I went through the first half yesterday when a bit rushed and distracted and made what I hope are a few improvements; I went through the second half later when desperately sleepy and made a few more (I hope I didn't screw anything up). I think there's more work to be done; for example, I found the past-habitual "would" pseudo-tense a little overused: nothing wrong with any instance of it, but somehow a bit tiring overall. What I always find is a good way to improve fairly good prose (and something I did not do yesterday) is to print out and go over the thing with a red pen -- but perhaps my editorial brain is unusual in being to some extent numbed by a computer screen. Hoary 23:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please take Hoary's very good advice, among your other strategies. Tony 06:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That had been done. I'm still more curious as to what your issues were (and perhaps continue to be) with it so they can be acted on. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My issue is (not was) that the prose is not of professional standard. I've provided examples, which you have, by and large, addressed. But they are just that: examples of problems throughout the article. This is not an easy matter to fix. In the next few days, I'll have another look, but I reviewers are under no obligation to fix the problems that they identify here; nor are we expected to go through the whole article identifying every single problem. Examples should be enough to persuade you to take steps to improve the overall standard of the writing, and if that is not done, to stand as evidence that the nomination should fail. Tony 14:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My issue is simply that we seem to disagree regarding the standard. I would like to see such problems fixed, and while you're under no obligation to fix or identify them, it's difficult to address them if you're unwilling to do so.  That's my entire gripe about it, and I promise it's nothing personal toward you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm under an obligation to identify examples, if I want to exert pressure on the contributors to improve the writing (which I do), and on the review process to be particular about its standards. Would you do it differently if you had the same objectives as a reviewer? Tony 15:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if I were in your shoes at this point, I would have done a job identifying what I found to be objectionable in regards to the specific prose issues, especially since the nominator is pleading with you for some information given the objection. My issue with this is more the blanket characterization rather than your intent, which is entirely noble.  If I don't know what you're talking about, there's no way I can fix it whether I find an approving copyeditor or not.  I don't even know if Hoary's fixes, for example, will meet your standard.  That's all I'm getting at here - if I had major prose issues with an article that's otherwise close to FA standard and has a lot of support, I'd take that extra step and provide more detail, and in retrospect it was wrong of me to expect that of you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Above I mischaracterized the use of would, in the article it's often a backshifted future (and correctly so). I went through the article again today (though I didn't follow my own advice and print it out); note the occasional question embedded (conspicuously) in an SGML comment within the article. -- Hoary 13:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll address those with you at the talk page, I think. I have some questions on a few of them, but I'm getting slammed currently.  I appreciate your detailed input, however. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hoary, thanks for pointing out the technical terms for this phenomenon, which I've been groping for for a while now. My feeling is that a bit of it is OK, but it can become very predictable if used repeatedly. It can give a text a journalistic feel, and in most cases is plainer and simpler in past tense. Sometimes, this "back-shifted" future construction is accompanied with vauge time phrases, such as "she would go on to write three more plays in this style". Tony 15:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Tony, have the changes addressed the issues? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose fair use images lack fair use rationales. --Peta 03:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Guess I can't necessarily trust other reviews. I believe this is fixed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Not lookin' good. Tony 11:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * More problems, taken at random from a section:
 * Why isn't "exploitation film" linked?
 * It is, in the lead. OK, sorry.
 * I've now linked it elsewhere too. Hoary 08:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Clumsy and barely grammatical sentence: "Following a pre-planned lecture and bookselling attempt, the film resumes with the girl learning that she is pregnant." Well, how does "pre-planned" differ from "planned"? "Atttempt" is kind of odd—what is a bookselling attempt? Is this attempt depicted in the film, which then "resumes"? "The girl learning" is, strictly speaking, ungrammatical. Rather than traditional solution ("The girl's learning that ...", which is outmoded nowadays), try recasting the clause. So it's a whole lot of little problems.
 * What's "barely grammatical" about it? I've made a slight adjustment because I don't like how it sounds anymore, but I'm not seeing the problem.
 * It's not only Tony who's confused. As I understand (and have boldly rewritten), there's an intermission, wherein Elliott Ness I mean Forbes tells people about, ahem, interpersonal hygiene and flogs some books. I can imagine that there were occasions when sales of books were zero, but even so "sell" seems an acceptable simplification of "attempt to sell". (If a regular bookseller sells no books on one day, we don't upbraid him with "Having sold no books, you're not a bookseller but merely somebody who attempts to sell books.") As for "the girl('s) learning", if a minor morphological phenomenon is in the process of changing from X to Y (as here), I think you can plump for either X or Y or perhaps both (depending how far along we are from X to Y); to avoid both seems to me peculiarly ascetic. -- Hoary 08:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Confusing: "The film typically ended with the birth of the girl's child, sometimes stillborn and other times put up for adoption." and "referencing the pregnancy by noting that the girl's clothes no longer fit". ''The birth was "sometimes stillborn" is OK, but the birth was "other times put up for adoption"? Muddled.
 * Why is it confusing?
 * I think Tony has here sleepily misread something. It's not the birth that's stillborn or put up for adoption; it's the child. (sez Hoary) But my point is that it reads as the birth, not the child .... Tony 16:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)\
 * I'm sorry, I feel like an idiot, but I don't see it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've (perhaps wrongly) guessed what was meant and rewritten accordingly. -- Hoary 08:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "The $62,000 production was presented via over 300 prints"—via over?
 * We know that over 300 prints were created to be distributed. How should this be worded otherwise? "more than 300 prints of the $62,000 production were distributed". "Presented" was a problem.
 * Presented, as we've said before, is the proper term here. This is one thing that makes no sense changing because of its overall accuracy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, we're getting somewhere. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC) No, I don't think we're getting anywhere. I'm providing evidence that the whole text requires careful copy-editing, not just the issues that I raise. I'm not going through the whole thing like this. It's your job to collaborate with WPians who can do this. Tony 13:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sheesh, what a -- oh, right, NPA. Well, Tony, er, inspired me to go through the article again, though still not doing what I ought to do, which is to print it out. I hope and believe that it is starting to get somewhere. -- Hoary 15:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you won't be the first person to print it out. Thank you for your continued help in dealing with this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I've printed it out. Yes, you guessed it, yet more niggles.

But keep at it! Babb is definitely FA material and this article is really close. -- Hoary 08:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I still don't get the way KB "[presented] each with his favorite marketing motto: "You gotta tell 'em to sell 'em." In its original context it probably made instant sense, but does it mean you gotta tell what's in the flicks in order to sell them, you gotta tell the suckers about the flick in order to sell them on it, you gotta tell some big ones in order to sell the flicks, or what? Yes, they all do make the same general impression: "you gotta go all out in order to cash in", but the reader first encounters the "motto" before reading of the particular ploys that KB used, so it's unsettling. (Or maybe I'm just thick.)
 * That's fair. I mention it in the lead because I personally thought that it was not only an interesting quote, but summed up his feelings on marketing and presentation.  I don't especially understand why it's confusing, but if it's causing this much trouble, removing it from the lead isn't going to affect too much in the way of quality - it's all detailed further into the article anyway, which is the more important part. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've guessed that the many prints of the ghastly-sounding Mom and Dad have different endings.
 * Yes, and I'm still waiting on a response from the folks down at the Archive, but I'm starting to feel pessimistic about it.
 * OK Hoary 05:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm puzzled to read that the exploitation genre was "at the forefront of the battles over censorship and the motion picture censorship system." I haven't read much about this, and I haven't read about it recently, but I got the impression that putatively artistic movies were at the forefront. (Anyway, I have trouble imagining that right-of-speech advocates would get much worked up over this kind of tosh.)
 * That's directly from the sources. Since I can go into OR territory here without a problem, the amount of legal challenges that films like this went through were massive, moreso than the artsy ones that went through the actual studio processes.  Beyond that, the producers and presenters of these films often challenged the laws themselves to get the films shown in the cities they wanted, New York City being a major battle for Mom and Dad in particular.  Even though they were emphasizing the naughty bits, they often presented them as educational material, thus making problems for themselves in some areas, but covering their rear ends in others. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Then I was wrong. I withdraw my (very tentative) objection. Hoary 05:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Uncle Tom's Cabin appears to be German, I think the notes need rearranging, and the photo of the press kit needs attention; I've elaborated on each of these on your talk page.
 * I saw. There's definitely a discrepancy that has cropped up since I put in the Uncle Tom's Cabin material in, and I just need to dig up the copy of the book that I got that from.  The press book photo is indeed that ugly and yellow, but I'll see if a book stand can help things a bit. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I dug out my book - without having seen the film, it appears that the language is indeed Italian, but I can't tell if the film is actually Italian, so I've edited to clear that up. Obviously, the more specific information I can get, I'll adjust accordingly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My hazy knowledge of Italian films suggests that even if it had used Italian actors and had been marketed as an Italian film, it would have been dubbed in Italian. I wouldn't be surprised if everybody spoke his or her own first language, and the actors of Onkel Toms Hütte (if that's what it was) were from all over the place, Tom himself played by somebody born in the US. All in all, I increasingly doubt that this film is simply describable as an Italian-language or a German-language production. Presumably Babb got hold of it in one language, and that could well have been Italian. -- Hoary 05:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Did some copyediting to the article, I have a couple issues answered/fixed before I can support:

Thanks. - Tutmosis 17:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I dont understand the term "distribution overhead"
 * "Distribution overhead" being the cost of distribution. A fairly common term as I understand it, although perhaps I'm wrong.
 * "His wife noted his success with film "exploitation" makes no sense, how do you note sucess?
 * By noting it? This comes from a letter to the editor she wrote, where she pointed out his success.
 * What "new technique" did Babb have?
 * I'm not sure where that came from, I've fixed this.
 * "who hired director William Beaudine to film it on a low budget over six days." I thought he bought this films, you mean refilm?
 * Some films he bought, others, such as Mom and Dad, he created and produced himself. I have added a small piece of information to amke this clear.
 * "often going on the road with it himself" How do you go on the road with a film?
 * By doing just that, going from place to place presenting the film. This is explained throughout the article.
 * "She receives letters from him and requests "hygiene books" from her mother" What do letters have to do with hygiene books?
 * Fixed, I hope.
 * "set up as the antagonist" seems out of place and makes no sense
 * Eliminated. Remnants.
 * "presented via over 300 prints" What are prints?
 * Prints are what the movies are on. A common film term.
 * "sell Bibles and other spiritual literature" How do you sell a spiritual lecture?
 * Spiritual literature. d;-)
 * "When this title failed to stir up much interest, Babb instead focused on the one scene of female nudity" What does the title of the film and have to do with a scene?
 * The title is referred to in the line before this. I thought it was clear, but i've made it a little more explicit.
 * "portrayed the nude behind of Harriet Andersson." makes no sense?
 * Behind. Not the rear end, but entire back.  Behind.  If you have a better/more accurate word, I'll gladly change it.
 * What are "women's clubs"(a 'club' can mean a lot of things)?
 * Well, it's one of those words that I'm surprised doesn't have an article yet. Women's clubs are a fairly well understood term for me at least, if you have any ideas on adjusting this...
 * Thanks for the input. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support after coming up empty on trying to find any other problems. Great work! - Tutmosis  02:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support: excellent work. -- Hoary 05:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, I agree with the two above. Very easy and interesting to read, and fits the FA criteria to a tee. Brilliant work again. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 04:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Object. A lot going on here:  a peer review might have better prepared this article for FAC.
 * Ongoing and dedicated attention needed to the prose, per Tony's comments.
 * It has been through multiple peer reviews and prose reviews. Do you have anything in particular, since Tony isn't able to provide example?
 * Too many Fair Use images.
 * Is too many fair use images a reason for objection? Are you claiming that they don't add anything to the article?   Are fair use images in featured articles a problem?
 * The references need attention (throughout) to biblio style. Examples *only*:
 * (No last access date. Retrieved by?)  Retrieved by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Library Now fixed, Sandy (Talk) 20:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There wouldn't be an access date, it's a brick-and-mortar library.
 * (Author first, correct biblio style, ISBN numbers not provided.) A Youth in Babylon: Confessions of a Trash-Film King, David F. Friedman. Prometheus Books, 1990.  Book refs now corrected, including ISBNs.  Sandy (Talk) 20:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've noticed no clear policy as to how to cite these. I can try to dig up my ISBN on this one, though.
 * (Author, any other info, so that a person can locate this source?) Hollywood Reporter. 20 August 1951.
 * There is no other info. It's an unattributed article.
 * Does the article have no title? How is someone to locate the article?  How do you satisfy WP:V if we can't locate the source?
 * We can locate the source. We have a date and a publication.  Everything that is available is referenced. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * (Unknown date - how is a reader to verify? Perhaps you can go to a library and locate the date.) Press-Enterprise: "Filmmaker Babb let promotion offset low budgets." Dennis McDougal, unknown date.
 * Because there is no date. If there was a date, I would add it, and I have done significant hunting for it.  I can even take a picture of the article for you to prove it.
 * And so on - no authors provided on many news articles, and I don't recognize your bibliographic style.
 * Again, style can be changed, but you'd first have to point out what style you'd prefer, since this one doesn't reach your own muster.
 * Sandy (Talk) 15:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jeff, I think you and Sandy are talking at cross purposes here. Your frustration is very understandable but his/her objections are nevertheless reasonable. Hang on a few hours; I hope then to be able to help a little. -- Hoary 00:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine, just looking for some detail. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've printed out the article again and shall attack it with a red pen in my so-called "free time" (who needs sleep?). So much for the quality of the prose (for now). Meanwhile, please focus on this: (Unknown date - how is a reader to verify? Perhaps you can go to a library and locate the date.) [....] / Because there is no date. If there was a date, I would add it, and I have done significant hunting for it. I can even take a picture of the article for you to prove it. So you have the article. Where did you get it? Nobody will blame you for the lazy/shoddy practice of the secondary source that provided it to you, if you're candid about this and are obviously as informative as you can be. So for (imagined) example Dennis McDougal, "Filmmaker Babb let promotion offset low budgets," Press-Enterprise (n.d.); reproduced Schaefer, Bold! Daring! Shocking! True! p.87. I suspect that you can fix other notes in a similar way (obscure primary source via carefully described secondary source): other handy terms are "cited" and "quoted". -- Hoary 02:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a photocopy of the actual article. Where it came from, I can make a few guesses, but I can't be sure.  If it came from a book, I'd list that, but it's just an unattributed photocopy of the article.  Trust me, I'm about 100 times more frustrated by that than anyone else might be. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * At the risk of seeming facetious, I'll say that I don't believe you woke up one morning to discover it lying next to your bed. How did you get hold of it? Use the article's talk page to describe candidly how you got hold of any material that (through no fault of yours) is poorly identified, and then we can work out how to express this in an honest, terse and helpful way within the article itself. -- Hoary 23:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm a complete friggin' idiot, I was totally reading this question a different way. This, like most of the news clippings, came from the archives at the AMPAS Library. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Back for a second look.
 * WP:V - the V stands for verifible - is the guiding policy on references: if you can't give us a means of verifying a source, it's not ... well ... verifiable.  The burden is on the editor adding the information to go to a library and track down the information necessary to locate the source.  "Because I found it in my grandmother's attic" isn't really helpful in terms of WP:V.  Further, if you don't know the origin of an article, we don't know if it's a reliable source.
 * Which article are we talking about with an "unknown origin?" To my knowledge, none of the articles are just "unknown," simply one that lacks author attibution and one that lacks a date.
 * I'm sorry for your frustration - it is a rather long and drawn out FAC. Peer review is one way to avoid overly-long FACs:  this wasn't a particularly thorough peer review, and GA doesn't mean much, relative and subjective as the process is.  I do agree that you are very close, and if you'll just buckle down, cast off the frustation, and deal with these few remaining issues, you'll get there, albeit the long way 'round.
 * Peer review occurred both on and off the normal PR channel. Numerous people have looked at it and gave it a positive look, thus my frustration.
 * Tony has given ample commentary on the prose, and he's the pro: when he's satisfied on the prose and copyedit, I'll be satisfied - giving more samples on an already overly-long FAC won't be helpful.  Saying that Tony isn't providing examples isn't helpful when he's listed numerous samples, and has given suggestions for copyediting.  I can give some samples from Personal life:  the organization of the paragraphs is jumpy, as if the article just groups anything that doesn't fit elsewhere into that section, without regard to flow.  "entered a common law marriage"  ... later, "the two stayed together" ... strange, if they entered a common law marriage, it seems redundant that they stayed together.  A new set of eyes to run through the entire text could help.
 * Unfortunately, Tony's commentary has been less than helpful on this. You've noted one thing, and I'd love to get it past this hump, but I don't know how to satisfy him even after bending over backwards for his requests.
 * Tony's fairly clear: his page about how to meet this criterion seems to imply that all that's required is unlimited time and effort. Simple as that! No, really: Print out the article, read it, red-pen it, alter it. Give a print-out to a friend in the "real world"; pay particular attention whenever the friend says he or she didn't quite understand such and such. Repeat. -- Hoary 23:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Clear as mud, perhaps. I'm not sure how many times this has been done at this point, but seeing as he hasn't been back again and there are more vague assertions, I need more to work with, frankly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hang in there. I've already gone over a new printout with a pen of a lurid color but for the next few hours shan't find time to make the changes. Twelve hours from now, perhaps. Meanwhile, I have to say that Tony's objections irritated me so much that I indignantly went to his "How to improve your prose to the point where I won't object" page, read it, shamefacedly thought, "Hmm, he makes some good points here", and took my revenge (?) by improving his prose. Curiously, he and I still seem to be friends. Really, he recommends checking processes that I'd normally never bother with, but that do work. -- Hoary 03:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Are too many Fair Use a reason for objection? Read up on what Fair Use is.  If we're saying we can use an image under Fair Use because it's the only image available and we're not hurting the author's copyright, how do we make that same claim multiple times in one article?  You might want to contact either Peta or Jkelly about reviewing your images - I'm not well-versed in Fair Use - they are.  Peta is currently objecting (above) to your images - when you have image clearance from someone who knows Fair Use as well as Peta or Jkelly, then I'll strike that objection.
 * I'm quite familiar with fair use, and the rationale issue has been dealt with, the objection is another hit and run as far as I can see. If you have an issue with the rationales, or don't feel they add to the article, than say so and we can work off that.  "Too many fair use images" isn't a really good rationale, I can point to numerous articles with more fair use images with less usefulness than these.  I am looking for more on this from the objection.
 * I see the book references are now corrected, and a consistent style is used. When you have satisfied Tony on copyedit, a Fair Use person on images, and added the missing information needed to verify those last few sources, I can support.  Sandy (Talk) 20:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Please keep this watchlisted and I'll let you know personally when the one I can deal with reasonably is addressed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)