Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Cat and the Canary (1927 film)


 * 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 19:42, 20 January 2007.

The Cat and the Canary (1927 film)
Self-nomination This is an article about a 1927 silent film. I started this article as a stub in June 2006 and finally completed the first draft after a wikibreak. This article was at peer review recently and was copy-edited to tighten the prose and clarify various points. It is comprehensive and well-sourced. I'm sure there are still some wrinkles that need ironing; thanks in advance for your input. Dmoon1 23:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Can any of the IMDb references be replaced with other reliable citations? IMDb should be used very cautiously as a reference - other than Writers Guild of America credits, its content is essentially fan-submitted with an undisclosed degree of verification or sources, and subject to change much like a wiki. Some WP editors object to any IMDb citations. Just to pick one example, could note #23 (on Paul Leni) be replaced by this? Gimmetrow 00:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I replaced note 23 with a print source that details Leni's career after Cat and the Canary. Dmoon1 02:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment As the person who passed this article's Good Article candidacy (I've yet to form an opinion regarding Featured Article status), I have no problem with the IMDb links, as they are only used to note other films people associated with this film were in. For me, it would be an issue if the film's goofs page or trivia page on IMDb was cited, but simply mentioning a filmography is OK. The one citation I have a problem with is #33, as it references the IMDb "movie references" page. -- Kicking222 01:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can find a better source for this (and perhaps an explanation of what exactly is parodied). Dmoon1 02:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify: my concern is with imdb as a source in general, not with particular citations. Imdb seems too much like a film wiki. While that is perfectly fine as an external link, WP generally tries to avoid citing itself and other wikis like Wookieepedia or Memory Alpha. I just think it is appropriate for WP's "best work" that such citations be minimized where possible. Gimmetrow 02:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * With the exception noted above, all of the citations to IMDb in this article are to references involving credits, which as you pointed out above are provided to IMDb by WGA. This article relies almost entirely on academic sources. Dmoon1 03:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WGA handles writing credits, not acting credits. I'll help find alternative citations, if you wish. Gimmetrow 03:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well duh (I overlook the obvious sometimes: Writers Guild!)! Thanks. This came up during peer review and as I said then I don't know of any alternative. So, your help in this matter would be appreciated. Dmoon1 03:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I've just skimmed this article, Dmoon, so I can't comment in full yet, but I have 2 comments- "As Universal anticipated, director Paul Leni turned Willard's play into an expressionist masterpiece suited to an American audience." Perhaps "perceived masterpiece" for the sake of neutrality? "Modern criticism of the film is mostly laudatory."  Is this sourced?  Only 2 modern reviews are given, both pointing in opposite directions.  Great as far as I can see though....  CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Replaced masterpiece with film (I thought that sourded funny) and reworded modern critics section. Dmoon1 02:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support I peer-reviewed this article, and aside from the IMDB cites (which is a minor issue), I think it passes the FA criteria.--Supernumerary 04:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support and the help during peer review. I have weeded some of the IMDb cites from the article and replaced them with print sources where available. Dmoon1 04:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support I don't notice any major issues. Article seems thorough.  The citations in the lead should be moved to the body, but that's minor. Shimeru 06:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support. Dmoon1 16:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Yep. It's good to go. Great work. -- Kicking222 14:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Dmoon1 16:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, I have no idea how you pull off writing an article from a stub into FA in 1 day (minor issues at PR not accounted for). Great job! &mdash; Tutmosis  18:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm an overachiever I guess. Thanks for your support! Dmoon1 18:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Nice work! The phrases "death of blood poisoning" and "death of Alzheimer’s" gave me a double take; wouldn't "death from X" be more common? Could you check the ellipses, they may be inconsistent: I saw this, ... this .... and this. ... (I would still prefer fewer citations to imdb.) Gimmetrow 19:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support and input above. Ellipses look different, depending on what was omitted from the original text and where. Four dot ellipses indicate that material was omitted from the end of the sentence (the fourth dot is a period). I did correct the ellipsis that looked like this . ... Dmoon1 19:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Fantastic article everything's cited (and appropriatly cited at that), well written. I'm jealous of your writing and researching skills Dmoon1. Andrzejbanas 22:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Dmoon1 22:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. This is good proof that an article doesn't have to be a mile long to be brilliant. It's got everything it needs, all gramatically correct, all cited in the correct places, all citations are fine. What more is there to say? Cream147 23:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support. Dmoon1 23:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support after a light ce; nice work, as usual. &mdash; Deckill e r 15:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dmoon1 15:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Can't find any problems. LuciferMorgan 11:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dmoon1 14:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - Can it be explained why the 1939 The Cat and the Canary was "far more successful" than its previous incarnations? The lead paragraph also says that this version is "the most notable".  Both claims seem to be backed by one review, which does not seem like enough.  I realize that this isn't an article for that film, but the wording just struck me as strong without much background to it.  —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added more citations that explain that the 1939 remake was more successful/notable than the 1930 remakes and how it sort of remade the 1927 film as more of a comedy. If you require more citations, please let me know. Dmoon1 04:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Can there be more wording in the article about that? I guess it's just the blanket statement of, "Elliott Nugent's The Cat and the Canary (1939) proved far more successful than the 1930 versions."  I'd like to know how, even if it's just briefly. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, take a look at it now. This is probably as good as I'm going to be able to get it. Dmoon1 05:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Very good article. Nice to read. Well-cited. Interesting. Size does not intimidate. Nice work.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support. Dmoon1 19:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Made a couple of very minor edits but the writing is excellent and the overall quality is impressive. Pascal.Tesson 13:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Dmoon1 13:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - Some work on the citations, but easily a featured article. Mkdw talk 10:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dmoon1 11:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate it if you did not revert my work in regards to the citations. Using the template citebook is a clean and consistent method to formatting citations. Also when you reverted my work, you reverted back to a version that did not include some of the publisher information, ISBN numbers, publish year, and full author name. All those things are helpful for a reader. Thanks, Mkdw talk 16:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:CITET says: "The use of Citation templates is not required by WP:CITE and is neither encouraged nor discouraged by any other Wikipedia citation guidelines. They may be used at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with the other editors on the article. Some editors find them helpful, while other editors find them annoying, particularly when used inline in the text. Because they are optional, editors should not change articles from one style to the other without consensus." —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) My citations were fine; nothing was missing. You didn't pay careful attention to the Notes section. According to Citation templates, these templates are not required in articles and "editors should not change articles from one style to the other without consensus". I am the sole author main contributor of this article (and only one of the copy-editors brought up the cite templates) and do not care for the template's citation style, so I use the Chicago Manual of Style citation system which is easy to use without the messiness of the templates. Your efforts to improve the article, however, are appreciated. Dmoon1 16:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Having just read this deleted statement, I don't want people to think I have claimed ownership of this (or any) article. I'm not sure how you determine consensus when a single editor contributes to an article (although I assume the opinions formed by others at peer review and here constitute some kind of consensus), but I would like to note that my revert of the cite templates was based on statements at Citation templates and Citing sources ("Follow the system used for an article's existing citations. Do not change formats without checking for objections on the talk page. If there is no agreement, prefer the style used by the first major contributor.") None of the edits made by other editors during peer review or FAC have been reverted unless they conflict with a WP policy or the MoS. Again, I thank everyone who has offered advice on ways this article can be improved. It is all appreciated. Dmoon1 21:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with the fact that User:Mkdw used the template or not. Some of the references were missing their ISBN numbers, published locations, publisher, and accessdate. User:Dmoon1 reverted those edits for stylistic purposes and then claimed he was 'the sole editor' of the article implying ownership, a direct violation of WP:NOT. So I suggest you relook over your own citations before reverting useful information that was added to them. Langara College 21:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that there were NO objections on the talk page when the changes were made to the citations. More over this has nothing to do with style of citations over the fact that you removed the ISBN numbers and publisher information from some of the citations, to which the style you used still asks for that information. 142.35.144.2 22:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have not vandalized this article (as claimed on my talk page. There is nothing missing from the references in the Notes section: in the original version before cite templates were added, notes 17, 31, 32, 34, and 36 appear to be missing information, but they are not. These sources have already been referenced in the article (notes 1, 16, 24, and 33), and therefore, according to the Chicago Manual of Style, do not repeat the full publication information as in the original note. All that is required is author's last name, brief title, and page number. In the version with cite templates, information is now needlessly repeated (see notes 1 & 17, 24 & 35), but using two different citation styles. Plus, some of the repeated references are STILL using the original Chicago Manual of Style abbreviated style. Dmoon1 00:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Dmoon1 is correct in what he says regarding the Chicago Manual of Style and has significantly contributed to 4 previous film FAs which account for his experience in them - I'd like to also note that only online media need the date they were last accessed. The date last accessed is used so if a link becomes dead it can be retrieved by the Wayback Machine. Additionally he wrote most of the article so to say he vandalized it is frankly demented. Also, that template is a pain in the ass which the user used - mainly though, there was no need to use the thing in the first place. LuciferMorgan 01:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.