Talk:Sherlock Holmes Baffled

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sherlock Holmes Baffled/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: None found

Linkrot: One dead link repaired.[1] –– Jezhotwells (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   I made one minor copyedit.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Can we have ISNs for the books, please?

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am going to pass this as GA status, but the artcile could be improved by adding ISBN numbers. –– Jezhotwells (talk)

Thanks very much! Will endeavour to add those ISBNs - might try putting the refs in template format as well. Bob talk 16:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed reference

I have removed the reference below, as I have not been able to trace the article it's originally sourced from. Any ideas? Bob talk 00:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

John C. Tibbetts, citing the film as an example, notes "The brevity of these early silent films ... and their dependence upon explanatory titles limited plot and character development." (ref: John C. Tibbetts, Sherlock Holmes Baffled, jrank.org. Retrieved 28 January 2009.)

I found a better cite for ref#8 the film length and replaced the IMDB cite which might be questioned by some. I can't find the source of the Tibbets cite, except in Wiki mirrors. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Same problem I found. I assume it exists somewhere, but if it does I can't find it. It was really only there to add something to the rather short "plot" section (30 seconds doesn't give one much to say, really). I'm currently looking for something to replace the "weirdwildrealm" source, although rather like the other webcitation, it's only there to reference details that are available in the other offline sources. Bob talk 15:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

McKuras, Julie (December 2000). "100 Years Ago" (PDF). Friends of the Sherlock Holmes Collections. 4 (4). University of Minnesota: 2. gives a little on the plot and the making of the film.

Thanks for that link - it's provided several replacement cites, as well as a good replacement for the above statement. Bob talk 20:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Also removed "Some More Early Cinema". Wild Realm Reviews. Retrieved 28 January 2010. Bob talk 20:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

louchely?

What does "louchely-dressed" mean? RJFJR (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

"Of questionable taste". In this context, it refers to his slightly flouncy dressing gown. Bob talk 15:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

A note on the .ogg video

For some reason (probably my incompetence), the .ogg video doesn't seem to work in Internet Explorer (although curiously, it does in Firefox). If anybody is able to sort it out, please feel free to have a go. Alternatively, the video is widely available on a number of external video hosting sites, for example [2]. Bob talk 11:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

IE lacks native support for Ogg Theora videos. However it should play if you install VLC media player or java.©Geni 00:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Length

I enjoyed this article very much, but I did have one question. The given film length, frame width, and frame rate give a running time closer to 40 seconds: (86.86 m/(0.068 m/frame))/(30 frames/s) = 42.58 s. Am I missing something? Lesgles (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right - it's roughly between 30-40 seconds. I guess because it was hand cranked, there's not a definitive running time anyway. Bob talk 07:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

True, I guess it's just that the word "giving" seemed to imply a mathematical calculation, whereas it's in fact just a different number from a different source. Probably not important. But by the way, the film length you give does not appear in Sherlock Holmes for Dummies. Could you add the source for that? Lesgles (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Opening line

...is a very short American silent film

Is "very short" WP:OR? Lugnuts (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It's actually probably more of a "words to watch" sort of thing, like weasel words or peacock terms. Along those lines. As "very short" is subjective. What defines "very short", and how is that different from just "short". Is this a "short film", or just a film that isn't very long? If it's the former, then it should probably be linked. If it's the later, then it's unnecessary in the lead sentence.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I would just change it to "short film". The average can user can look at it's time length in the infobox (or just watch it as it's provided on the site) and tell themselves "wow. That's really short!" or "well it wasn't that short". Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

"Short film" is misleadingly imprecise. The average user will assume that a "short film" is long enough to qualify as what most people would call a "film", maybe between five or ten minutes and an hour or so. Being less than a minute long objectively makes the "film" shorter than well over 99 percent of all other films ever made, so there should be some indication of that. Maybe something like "snippet-length", or in this case "30-second". —Coder Dan (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Short film is fine. They can see how long it is. We'd still say an hour long film is feature length as we would for Lawrence of Arabia, even if they are great lengths apart. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

> Short film is fine. They can see how long it is.

You already said that. Simply repeating yourself just turns the discussion into an argument. As for Lawrence of Arabia being feature length, the article calls it an epic film, which is "more or less synonymous with enormity" and "covers a long span of time, in terms of both the events depicted and the length of the reel". Also, with a running time of 216 minutes, LoA is only about twice as long as the industry average of about 100 minutes or so, while 30 seconds is shorter by a factor of two hundred. That kind of ratio is "very" unusual. —Coder Dan (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, duh. According to Short_film#Very_short_films, "very short film" is standard terminology. Maybe just link "very short" to that section? —Coder Dan (talk) 13:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That section isn't even cited, so I do not think it should be considered standard. They wouldn't have called it "very short" when it was released either. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

> That section isn't even cited

It's sort of cited indirectly through The International Festival of Very Shorts.

> They wouldn't have called it "very short" when it was released

Wikipedia isn't written for people who were alive a hundred years ago.

—Coder Dan (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a very weak cite for modern films, not silent shorts. Find a better source and stop just placing things in bold to make any more point you are trying to make more prominent. A quick skim of google books doesn't show any film book noting a definition of "very short". You aren't convincing me. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

> Find a better source and stop just placing things in bold

Don't tell me what to do. I use short bold quotes of your text as informal subheadings that organize my posts and help readers find individual responses. —Coder Dan (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Just doesn't seem standard and makes this page look messy and makes it look like someone is shouting when a simple " mark will do. Anyways, I'd still like to see a better source. I've searched, have you? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

> I've searched, have you?

I'm not trying to enforce "very short" as the only acceptable wording. All I'm saying is that "short film" is misleading based on the standards of typical modern readers. As for the formatting: (a) there are few things in this world that are more standard than bold-formatted (sub)headings, (b) good communication isn't really standard on the internet anyway, and (c) "messy" seems like gratuitous FUD to me. Have a nice day. —Coder Dan (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where standards of "typical modern readers" come in as I just don't see us coming in with people complaining that with articles written like "i knew it was short but that was VERY short. please fix this". I'm sorry if I've come off a bit crude, but I felt I was being put on the spot with random bold statements. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

What about calling it "a 30-second-long American short film"? Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

works for me!

Inclusion of the film as a "Sherlock Holmes film"

Taken from the text:

"The plot of Sherlock Holmes Baffled is unrelated to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's canonical Sherlock Holmes stories; it is likely that the character's name was used purely for its familiarity with the public."

If that is the case then why is it classed as a Sherlock Holmes film? It's a bit tendacious to claim it as a Sherlock Holmes film when that is contradicted by the featured article's own text. This is inconsistent with the notion that any film about Sherlock Holmes was made with the "intention" of using the sleuth from 221b rather than filming any old actor and then after the fact adding a label, in this case Sherlock Holmes Baffled. e.g. it's like mentioning every single representation of the name, sic Indian restaurants (Taj Mahal), it's the use of the name and not the entity that is being represented.

This need clarification because this is being reported as the earliest representation of Sherlock Holmes when in fact this is just a short that has been labelled as Sherlock Holmes. There is a difference and one that is not being addressed here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.102.173 (talk • contribs)

Haha, as you note, it's widely regarded as the first Sherlock Holmes film simply because it's the first instance of the character's name appearing in a cinematic context. I think it's made fairly clear early on that it's not true Conan Doyle, although to be honest neither were any of the other early Holmes films. After all, even Rathbone's highly regarded films pitted Holmes against the Nazis in the 1940s. The Holmes iconography based on William Gillette's New York portrayal is partly there, I guess, and Baffled is usually mentioned in published studies of Sherlock Holmes films. I suppose ultimately, it's unlikely the plot of A Study in Scarlet could be squeezed into a 30/40 second film. Bob talk 15:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Albeit in a form unlike that of later screen incarnations

"It is the earliest-known film to feature Arthur Conan Doyle's detective character Sherlock Holmes, albeit in a form unlike that of later screen incarnations.[1]"

Well, how is it unlike other later screen incarnations? The medium it is created on? The baffledness of the Holmes? The shortness of the film?

I have a few more guesses, but, maybe someone could just point me to where in the article this is elaborated upon....

--184.99.171.157 (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes Baffled#Analysis Bob talk 15:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Action - close friend?

"This is because he solved the crime and realized that it was a close friend to him." How do they come to that conclusion? There's no possible way to tell that he knows the person, and no indication that the case is solved. Dissapearing persons and items are involved, and he's baffled by their ability to dissapear. To come to other conclusions is to create something out of nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.145.251.34 (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, you unfortunately just came across the page a few seconds after that bit was added. Reverted now. Bob talk 17:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Written by Arthur Conan Doyle

The infobox states that the film is written by Arthur Conan Doyle. This is very clearly incorrect. Actually, I'll qualify that: The infobox says written by Arthur Conan Doyle and adds (character), which still suggests the same thing. It would be more accurate to suggest that it was written by Arthur Marvin based on Arthur Conan Doyle's Character. -Dhodges (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, I would suggest that it should probably say "N/A" with regards to the writer. As a 30-second silent film with no dialogue and no subtitles, I would highly doubt a script was written. More likely, Marvin presumably simply given instructed the cast what to do. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I would assume there was at least an informal script, considering the amount of trick photography involved. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)