Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whisky Galore! (1949 film)/archive1

Whisky Galore! (1949 film)

 * Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Whisky Galore! is a 1949 film based on a novel which was based on the sinking of the SS Politician – an article that recently went through a successful FAC. This article went through GA three years ago under one of my nom de plumes, but I've recently expanded it further with new material. Any constructive comments are welcomed. – SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from JM
I mostly had my say at GAC; I think the article looks very strong.
 * "Mr. Farquharson" In British English, the period after titles is non-standard. Unless you have a particular reason to include the period, perhaps it should be removed?
 * Removed. - SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "Local inhabitants from the island and from nearby South Uist, heard that the ship was carrying 22,000 cases of whisky" The commas are a bit off here; you either need an additional comma after "island", or you need to lose the one after "Uist".
 * Tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "Mackenzie annoyed with aspects of the adaptation and, because of removal of religious divide, opined "Another of my books gone west"" Struggling a bit with this sentence. How about "Mackenzie was annoyed with aspects of the adaptation and, referring to the removal of the religious divide, described the production as "[a]nother of my books gone west"".
 * Yep, much better. - SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "with the exception of Radford and Greenwood" - They've not really been introduced yet!
 * We have them in the Cast list. - SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed this, but other actors are introduced in both the cast list and main body of the article. I think there's an argument for introducing them fully from both a reader-clarity and consistency perspective, but I leave it to you. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point: a little extra added to clarify. - SchroCat (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "Not all outsiders to the island are intruders: the other Englishman, Sergeant Odd, "acts as the audiences entry point into the community"" Does your source miss the apostrophe? If so, maybe [sic] would be a good addition?
 * Mea culpa. Now added. - SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "while The Manchester Guardian thought the" I'm generally not keen on this kind of personification. You're quoting an anonymous critic rather than the paper as a whole. (There are other examples.) I leave it to you whether you do anything about this, but note that I prefer the way you do it when you refer to "The reviewer for the Manchester Guardian"
 * It's not my preferred version either, but reassures me that it's not a problem. - SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * BB pulled me up, rightly, years ago about my phrase "The Times wrote..." (papers don't write themselves) but that apart the editorial voice is traditionally personified: "we think" etc. The Times thought, said, considered etc are standard forms. This is from a Guardian article: "the Times thought it 'sound' ... The Times said: 'Recreational drug use...'" Also "The Telegraph thought Fleabag's narcissism grew 'wearisome'...". The Guardian has or had a regular feature on paperback books with the recurring subheader: "What the Guardian thought".  Tim riley  talk   10:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. I await the wrath of Riley, but I know he can be calmed with red wine! - SchroCat (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "the studio's first" Plural or singular studio? You previously referred to to the studios plural!
 * Gone with "Ealing's" instead. - SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd maybe like to hear a little more about the remake and the stage show.
 * There is only a very brief mention of the stage show, so there isn't anything else to say about it. How much do you want on the remake? I didn't add anything more as we have a full article on it, but I'm happy to dig out some more if needed.
 * I'd have thought only a sentence or two; I think it'd be particularly useful to note whether it was a critical/commercial success, and note how it compares to the original film (in terms of plot, but perhaps anything else that you have a source on). No doubt some critics (I note one quoted in Wikipedia's article on the new film, for instance) compared the two films, so you can definitely keep the focus on the original film even while talking about the new one. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I've added a couple of contrasting opinions, which pretty much covers the general feeling about the film! - SchroCat (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And on the stage show - perhaps the names of a few people involved (playwright/adapter, director, leading performers) would be helpful. No doubt it's not as notable as the new film, so no need for too much detail. Just a thought - not a demand. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * A good thing I looked for other referneces for more details: it was an adaptation of the book, not the film. I have, however, found a musical based on the film, which I have added. - SchroCat (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Cheers, much appreciated, as always. - SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Trawling through Google Scholar... Hope that's helpful. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * From the final page of : "Among the milestones I am reviewing, mention must be made of the mobile studio unit system, so useful in our vari- able   climate when   shooting   exteriors at a particular location  for a  number of weeks. Tight Little Island (known in England  as Whiskey Galore) was one of the  first  pictures to utilize  this system. When  the  weather was  too bad for ex- teriors,   the unit moved into the im- provised film studios and shot small sets, which had been  prefabricated and sent from the main studio at Ealing, London." Worth a mention, perhaps?
 * This looks interesting. I've put in a request at Resource Request for a copy. - SchroCat (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Now added. - SchroCat (talk) 10:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you taken a look at McArthur's Scotch Reels? That's apparently about Whiskey Galore and The Maggie.
 * I have. His 2003 work Whisky Galore! and the Maggie: A British Film Guide is an updated volume and much better. - SchroCat (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What about Philip Kemp's Lethal Innocence? From p. 29 of Scotland: Global Cinema: Genres, Modes and Identities: "...the comedic aspect of Forsyth’s fi lms brushed away as though a façade, in favour of ‘uncovering’ the more weighty subject matter that laughing might somehow obscure. This stance on the director is not uncommon. It is apparent, for example, in Philip Kemp’s book-length celebration of director Alexander Mackendrick, in which Kemp defends Whisky Galore! for its use of the baser ‘conventions of comedy’ in relation to the otherwise more weighty considerations of Mackendrick’s oeuvre".
 * I'm stuggling to get hold of this at the moment, and don't have time to go to the BL to have a look at theirs. I've purchased a copy from Amazon, so will go add the relevant parts in a few days. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Got it at last.A couple of nice touches in there. I've added the entirely new information, and I'll go through the rest to see what else can be strengthened or expanded upon. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * pp. 46-7 of the same: "A number of British road movies pass through or conclude in Scotland, including The 39 Steps (1935), I Know Where I’m Going! (1945), What a Whopper (1961), Hold Back the Night (1999) and The Last Great Wilderness (2002). This tradition typically sees an English character cross the border into Scotland, and is part of a broader trend of fi lms depicting outsiders (usually English or US characters) either stepping o ff the boat or plane in Scotland. This tradition includes: Whisky Galore! (1949), Laxdale Hall (1952), The Maggie (1954), Brigadoon (1954), Trouble in the Glen (1954), Rockets Galore! (1957), Local Hero (1983), Loch Ness (1996), The Rocket Post (2004) and Made of Honor (2008). In many of these fi lms, in particular the road movie, the outsider is either humiliated or rejuvenated (or both) by their experiences in Scotland. Moreover, their experiences often re fl ect upon the changing relationship between England, Scotland and the USA at di ff erent points in history. 9 However, in the 1990s/2000s things have changed. Coinciding with the increasingly contested issue of Scotland’s cultural and political devolution from the state of Britain (following the failed referendum of 1979) and the impetus towards indigenous expression created by Forsyth in the 1980s, the Scot fi nally emerged as the central character in a road movie in Soft Top, Hard Shoulder (1993)."
 * We cover the main point of this (the outsider being humiliated) in a better work already . - SchroCat (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added this anyway: although we cover the humiliation, we don't cover the rejuvenation, which could be applied to Sgt Odd (although the text doesn't make it clear). - SchroCat (talk) 11:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And p. 63 of the same: "Traditionally, in fi lms set in Scotland, from Whisky Galore! (1949) to The Last Great Wilderness (2002), a ceilidh is the place where inhibitions fall way as the alcohol and dancing break down the barriers between locals and guests visiting Scotland. The ceilidh, then, is typically a symbol of Scotland associated with Tartanry that illustrates the curative charms Scotland o ff ers to the tourist or visiting outsider."
 * We have most of this, but the "curative charms" for the outsider is angle we can add. - SchroCat (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Now added - SchroCat (talk) 11:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Support; a well-researched article, and an engaging read. There's a question mark over an obscure book that may have more, but I know steps are being taken to chase that down, and it's not the end of the world if it's not included anyway. (Though maybe it could be added to a further reading section.) Josh Milburn (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Image review

 * Suggest adding alt text
 * Yep (I know - I always forget the stuff!) now added - SchroCat (talk) 10:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * File:Compton_Mackenzie.jpg: source link is not working - when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 1922: Now added, with an archive link to the book it was published in. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley
I reviewed – and much enjoyed – this article in the summer (offline, for reasons I have forgotten). It looks in v. good shape, but I have a few bijou quibblettes: That's my lot. Nothing of great consequence, and I look forward to supporting on my next visit here. –  Tim riley  talk   22:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC) I'm not mad about "re-edited the film closer to the version Mackendrick had filmed" – the repetition is not pleasing – but such a minor matter does not prevent my adding my support for the elevation of this article to FA. It seems to me comprehensive, well researched, a pleasure to read, and as well illustrated as imaginable given WP copyright policy.  Tim riley  talk   17:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * "The initial cut of the film was considered poor by Michael Balcon, the head of the studio" – not sure why the passive voice is wanted here. Why not just MB thought it poor?
 * "so one of Ealing's directors" – there are fogeys old enough to remember their English masters telling them that "so" is not a conjunction. Perhaps it is now so regarded by the young, but not by me.
 * "was well-received on its release" – hyphen not wanted, I think.
 * Plot
 * "Sergeant Odd returns on leave to court Peggy" – on leave from the army, I imagine, but it might be as well to say so. And as you later say he is an Englishman, it might be helpful to say briefly why he is returning.
 * "The whisky also gives the teetotal Campbell" – "the hitherto/previously teetotal"?
 * Filming
 * "MacPhail re-write it" – the OED doesn't hyphenate "rewrite"
 * Well it bloody well should! - SchroCat (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "Mackenzie was persuaded ...Mackenzie played" – perhaps just "he" the second time?
 * "pre-fabricated in Ealing" – another hyphen the OED doesn't go in for. (We pass lightly over Sir Winston Churchill's comment, "We must have a better word than 'prefabricated'. Why not 'ready made'?")
 * "the pompous, high-minded attempts of Waggett" – can attempts be pompous? Is this more the high-minded attempts of the pompous Waggett?
 * Post-production
 * "Charles Crichton, added additional footage at Ealing Studios and re-edited the film back to the version Mackendrick had filmed" – if CC added additional footage he surely didn't restore the film back to Mackendrick's version? Something like it, perhaps, but with new bits.
 * "Mackendrick was still not satisfied with the final film and thought it looked like an amateur work. Because of financial pressures on the studio he decided to release it with little promotion. Is Mackendrick the right man? One might expect "Balcon" rather than "Mackendrick" here.
 * The "He" should be Balcon, bu Mackendrick didn't like the film much. - SchroCat (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Release and reception
 * "In France, the film was retitled Whisky à gogo; the name was later used as that of a discothèque in Paris. It was released into the US." – If we're being really pedantic, grammatically the "it" relates to the name of the discothèque, and you ought to use the name of the film rather than the pronoun. As to the Parisian establishment, I have my doubts that it was a discothèque – more a night club, I'd say, but what I do know about Parisian nightlife? (Answers on a postcard, please.)
 * Discothèque may be correct (it's certainly what the source calls it) and a quick search shows an inclination to the term, although club, night club, hot spot etc are also in the mix. - SchroCat (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "The reviewer C. A. Lejeune, writing in The Observer" – it's rather a revelation of the obvious to tell us that the writer of the review was a reviewer. Similarly for "The critic Bosley Crowther, writing in The New York Times" later.
 * "The reviewer C. A. Lejeune ... the reviewer for The Manchester Guardian ... The Manchester Guardian's reviewer" – a helluva lot of reviewers. See my comments above and consider blitzing the damn things. The papers said it. All right, please yourself!
 * "while the reviewer ... while the lead roles" – too much whiling. Using the word to mean "and" or "although" is never necessary and is, I think (and, more to the point, so does Fowler) better avoided.
 * Legacy
 * "Much of the influence is because of the Kailyard effect used in Whisky Galore!" – this accusation ought, I'd say, to be attributed inline.
 * "McFarlane, writing for the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography" – why not just "in" rather than "writing for"?
 * Many thanks . All your comments duly attended to here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks . I've tweaked "filmed" for "produced", which should cover things. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources review
No issues with the sources: all links are working, formats are consistent and MoS-compliant, the sources themselves meet the FA criteria for quality and reliability.

But: will you please look at your note (c), which equates £2,000 in 1948 with £714,000 in today's money. For £2,000 read £20,000, according to your text. Brianboulton (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks . Note c tweaked accordingly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Cassianto

 * "The film was produced at the same time as Passport to Pimlico and Kind Hearts and Coronets, and with the studio's directors all working on other products, Danischewsky asked Balcon if Alexander Mackendrick, one of Ealing's production design team, could take the role. -- Three things here: Firstly, is "products" the right word here? "Projects" sounds better and more accurate for a film. Secondly, you say that he could take on the role, but don't actually say what that role was. Sure, you allude to it, but is this enough to say that the film lacked a director and that Mackendrick was scouted for "the role"? Thirdly, "role".  Not usually reserved for a director, I think, more for an actor, as the role they play is of someone else.  Surely a director is a director and they are themselves while they are directing. All three could be sorted by a simple swap of "role" to "director".
 * "The screenplay was written by Compton Mackenzie and Angus MacPhail, based on Mackenzie's novel; he received £500 for the rights to the book and a further £1,000 because of the film's profitability." -- who's "he"? We mention three men in this sentence.
 * "Alastair Sim was offered the role of Joseph Macroon in the film, but turned it down, to avoid being typecast" -- is the second comma needed here?


 * Filming
 * Is there a reason why you link Barra on its second mention and not on the first, two paragraphs up?
 * Link to Gordon Jackson has been omitted in the last para.

"Martin-Jones—describing the scene as a ceilidh—" -- is the coding broken?
 * Themes

Support - The rest, all good. It almost makes me want to cheer on Mackendrick who, after reading this, it appears, wasn't well-liked at Ealing and who was professionally kicked into the gutter by Balcon and his money men. Well, I'm pleased that Mackendrick had the last laugh as it is a great film and the critics confirmed this. Not his best effort by a long chalk (this was), but I can see where he got his disdain for the British film industry; no wonder he sodded off back to the states in '55.  Cassianto Talk  18:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I completely agree that Ladykillers was a better film - darker, tighter and much better all round. I'll get round to doing that one at some point soon! - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Cheers, all duly tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Support and comments from Jim
Very entertaining, like the film. A few minor nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me?  07:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 *  based on his 1947 novel Whisky Galore, and Angus MacPhail. The story—based on a true event—Avoid two based ons?
 * Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 *  an incident in the Second World War, when the cargo ship SS Politician —why not give 1941 as the year
 * I was trying to stress the war element as the most important part, rather than the year, which 'introduces' the idea before we get to the Home Guard etc. 1941 now added - SchroCat (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Jonny Murray, the professor of film and visual culture...—slightly odd, either a professor or say where he's a prof perhaps?
 * Tweaked to remove the professor bit.
 * Hi, Many thanks for these; all duly tweaked. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by JennyOz
Thanks for this SchroCat, I look forward to watching the movie! Regards, JennyOz (talk) 07:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * S.S. Cabinet Minister runs aground - remove dots (per MoS no punc in prefix), (others, SS Cabinet Minister and SS Politician are fine)
 * could take direct the work - remove "take"?
 * Roger Hutchinson - wlink Roger Hutchinson (writer), and authorlink?
 * Keep the Home Guard Turning - wlink
 * Excellent - a new article since I wrote this one. - SchroCat (talk) 09:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Everything had to be - not really everything?maybe 'Nearly everything'?
 * the feet of one of the islanders - same local just mentioned?
 * the feet of one of the islanders was used - were rather than "was", or even 'were filmed'?
 * dinner at the Savoy Hotel, London. - in London
 * This is true of both Whisky Galore! and Mackenzie's other Scottish-based Ealing comedy, The Maggie. - definitely referring to actor Mackenzie here, not director Mackendrick?
 * McArthur, in his work comparing Whisky Galore to - missing exclamation (ie film not book?)
 * Jeffrey Richards - wlink in prose? (already has authorlink)
 * name was later used as that of a discothèque - 'for a' discothèque instead of 'that of a'? Was it named directly after the movie? There are others, Aus and NY but not related?
 * for the Manchester Guardian considered - cap T and italics on The per others
 * Rockets Galore, Mackenzie's sequel - wlink Rockets Galore (novel)
 * And another new one. - SchroCat (talk) 09:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Rockets Galore, Mackenzie's sequel to Whisky Galore!, was adapted - remove exclamation mark if this refers to the novel?
 * thought it an "innocuous, unmemorable remake" that there was "little reason for it to exist". - 'and' before that?
 * Newspapers... Muir, Kate - authorlink
 * Ref 16 "Whisky Galore". Sight & Sound. - italics on S&S per others
 * McArthur, Colin (2003). Whisky Galore! and the Maggie: A British Film Guide - 'the' should have cap here?
 * Brown, John (Winter 1983). "The Land Beyond Brigadoon". Sight and Sound. 53 (1): 40–46. - ampersand, ie Sight & Sound?
 * ibox Gerald Gibbs - doesn't appear in prose ie no ref for him
 * water of life - even though within a quote, could wlink Aqua vitae
 * possible category: Films set on the home front during World War II
 * All done, . Many thanks for your fine eye for detail on this - it is as appreciated as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This gnome very happy to sign support. Thanks SchroCat for tweaks!. JennyOz (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 06:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)}}