Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Un célebre especialista sacando muelas en el gran Hotel Europa/archive1

Un célebre especialista sacando muelas en el gran Hotel Europa

 * Nominator(s): Kingsif (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a really old film. 122 years old, to be exact, and hasn't been seen since! Understandably, the article is somewhat shorter than many FA's, if just because the wealth of knowledge is limited. The film is the first film produced in Venezuela - that we know of - and which has some study and discussion behind it. The peer review was useful in being productive to improve the article, as well as not raising any major flags. I feel that as much information as is freely accessible on the topic has been included, I just gave all the sources a check and they should be good, so now I can't wait for your comments to see if we can make it even better - I do feel this article could be FA soon! Kingsif (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Ian
Recusing from coord duties to review, very pleased to see an article on Latin American film. That said, after reading the lead and first paragraph of the main body, I am concerned with prose and logic: Based on this fairly quick reading I'd have to oppose at this stage, although given the article's brevity I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to say it should be withdrawn. I do think it needs further copyedit, and clarity on the production of the film as opposed to its first screening. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * the first Venezuelan film ever produced -- "ever" adds nothing to the point being made.
 * The film shows a surgeon, displaying at the Hotel Europa in Maracaibo -- "displaying"? Do we mean the film displays him, in which case it's redundant because we've already said it "shows" him, or is he putting on a display? Simpler to just say something like ''The film shows a surgeon at the Hotel Europa in Maracaibo".
 * Venezuelan film production began on 28 January 1897 at exactly 7:00 pm, less than six months after the first Vitascope had been brought to the nation, with the screening of two films produced in the country -- how does film production begin with screenings? Surely the films were produced before the screening? It looks from this that film exhibition began at 7pm on 28 January 1897. Skimming the rest of the article, I struggled to find anything that talks about exactly when this first example of Venezuelan film was actually produced...
 * Thanks! Yes, had a ce for GAN, but more isn't bad—I've made some edits to address the comments you've made, if you have anymore it'd be great to know.
 * Sadly, not much is known about the production of the film; if there are any local records of when and how it was filmed at the hotel, they aren't online or in any archives I've found, and if the recovered filmstock could reveal anything then it's both in Zulia and nobody has yet written about it in an academic manner.
 * Kingsif (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Caeciliusinhorto
I am afraid the writing is not at the moment up to scratch for an FA. Some examples: I think the prose is going to need a lot of work to bring it up to FA standard, so it's an oppose from me I'm afraid. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "an 1897 Venezuelan short film, and the first Venezuelan film produced. It was screened at the Baralt Theatre in Maracaibo on 28 January 1897.": "Venezuelan film" repeated, and we are told it's from 1897 twice in the first two sentences. Simply "Un célebre especialista[...] is the first Venezuelan film produced.  It was screened at the Baralt Theatre in Maracaibo on 28 January 1897." gets across exactly the same information (okay, we lose "short") more concisely and more elegantly.
 * "Film scholarship questions the identity of its director, as well as its place within Latin American film history." This reads inelegantly to me.
 * "From documental evidence, it is understood that two other films, both French, were shown at the same time." Again, unnecessary verbiage. Cut "from documental evidence, it is understood that" unless this really adds something to the sense.
 * "Edison": Thomas Edison, I guess? Make it clear!
 * Thanks, any more comments would be appreciated! Kingsif (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator comment - Based on the two early opposes, it sounds like the writing needs work before it's ready. I'd advice making use of the Peer Review process, the Guild of Copy Editors, or perhaps just contact some interested editors in similar topic areas for help. This may be re-nominated after a minimum two-week waiting period. -- Laser brain  (talk)  22:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC) -- Laser brain  (talk)  22:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)