Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Jane Eyre (1910 film)

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 10:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Jane Eyre (1910 film)

edit
(
)

Created/expanded by 7&6=thirteen (talk), ChrisGualtieri (talk), BD2412 (talk), Goustien (talk). Nominated by 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)) at 14:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC).

  • - Article meets all DYK requirements. Recent GA. Over 9,000 characters. Hook is referenced sourced and interesting. Good job!--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Hook has been removed from queue. The source (which I'm not sure is reliable anyways) does not even mention the 1910 adaptation. If the 1909 adaptation "started a craze", it's perfectly possible that there were two or more in 1910, and that the craze peaked in 1915. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: struck the problematic hook; fixed some punctuation in the Create/expanded section. A new hook will be needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing problematic about the original and accurate and cited hook. The New York Times erroneously claimed that this was the first of the series, while overlooking an Italian version that predates the 1910 film."From Household Word to Household Object: An Exhibition on Charlotte Brontë's "Jane Eyre"". Rare Books School.org. 2009. Retrieved 21 January 2015."Film and Television Adaptations". The Enthusiast's Guide to Jane Eyre. 2014. Retrieved 7 February 2015.McGrath, Charles (4 March 2011). "Another Hike on the Moors for 'Jane Eyre'". The New York Times. Retrieved 6 February 2015. I think you should reconsider. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • First, that is still OR by WP:SYNTH. Understandable (quite possible), but still OR. Second, I still haven't seen any evidence that Rare Books School is an RS, either in general or in terms of film history. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I think we will need a new hook. I overlooked and misinterpreted this from the "Enthusiasts' Guide": "Jane Eyre {1909) Italian silent film Jane Eyre (1910) Italian silent film Director: Mario Caseini Jane Eyre (1910) Irma Taylor (Jane Eyre) Frank Crane (Mr. Rochester) Amelia Barleon Alphonse Esther Wm Garwood Director: Theodore Marston" [Emphasis added.] That is all from one source. I misread that as referring to the same Italian film. "Rare" says, "The first known film of Jane Eyre came out as a silent Italian movie in 1909." The New York Times wrote: "So far there have been at least 18 film versions, going back to a 1910 silent movie," Assuming that is true, this would make it the second or third international version, depending upon timing in 1910. It would still be the first English language version. All the sources agree on that, at least.
As to the reliability of the source rare, I quote from their home page: "Rare Book School (RBS) is an independent non-profit educational institute supporting the study of the history of books and printing and related subjects. Founded in 1983, it moved to its present home at the University of Virginia in 1992. RBS director Terry Belanger was one of 25 fellows named by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation on September 20th."
Here is another source, which is now in the article: “It underwent four American film adaptations in 1910, 1914, 1915 and 1921 . . .”Gillespie, Paul; Engel, Manfred; Dieter, Bernard (14 February 2008). Gerald, Ernest (ed.). Romantic Prose Fiction. Benjamins, John Publishing Company. p. 684. ISBN 9789027234568. Retrieved 15 February 2015.
Here is a final source: Ingham, Patricia. The Brontës (Authors in Context). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 263. ISBN 0-19-284035-5. ISBN 978-0-19-284035-6. Retrieved 15 February 2015. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
Additionally, there are Italian sources cited in the article, in the context of the identity of the director, which support at least the production date. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
My inclination, offhand, is to consider "Rare Books" reliable. But piecing together who's first and second, etc., this way is SYNTH. We'd need a single, authoritative source which comprehensively lists all known productions to work from. Even then we'd probably have to say "appears to be the first/second" etc. EEng (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

All the sources are consistent on that. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Gillespie supports it's being the first American production, but I'm still not clear on how you get that it's the first in English. EEng (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • User:7&6=thirteen, can you please clarify the matter for EEng, or propose another hook that doesn't mention first English language? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I thought I had clarified that. It is at least implicit in the sources. If that is not good enough, somebody we can just dumb down this hook to
In my opinion this is totally emasculated, mundane and boring. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Then why did you drop the supported "first American movie" clause? It wasn't necessary to do so. And I'm wondering why you have so many links in a row in the hook: surely "classic" and "drama" don't need defining. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Die Entführung aus dem Serail? I think that we should think of another hook. What would you prefer? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm content to let you think of another on your own, though if you wish a suggestion, perhaps EEng will have one. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, all I can think of at the moment is something cheap like

ALT3 ... that the main character in Jane Eyre is pointedly titular?

I think you'd get a pretty good clickthrough rate with that one. EEng (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC) But only if Martinevans123 thinks it's in good taste.

Goodness me that's so cheap. The Thanhouser Kid would be ashamed of you. (Another great silent film article, though. Well done Chris G!) Martinevans123 (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Well you'd know about cheap, of course. EEng (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
" ... holy crap, there are a lot of Jane Eyres out there." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I thought it was a great quote. And this is one of the first (if not the first American and first English). But I leave that to User:EEng to explain away. I for one don't feel like playing a game of proposing hooks only to have someone poke holes in them. IMHO, it's harder to build a ship than it is to sink it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
It is, which is why hard work is needed to make ships sink-proof. EEng (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • ALT4 ... that "holy crap, there are a lot of Jane Eyres out there"? EEng (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I approve. Nicely done! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

And as to your effort to make "Unsinkable" hooks, I note the redirect on that term. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Like they say, Loose titulars sink shipulars. EEng (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
So whatever happened with this one? Are you still looking for a hook? This would be a good one for Women's History Month. I can't think of anything clever, but better an "emasculated" hook than none at all. How about something like:

--Rosekelleher (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Check of the various ALT hooks needed; reviewer should specify which ones are approved and strike the ones that aren't. (I struck ALT1 and ALT2 due to issues raised.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • ALT 6 is good (hook fact cited and checks out; no close paraphrasing found; no image to check; short enough; interesting enough). GTG. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Personally I think "pointedly titular" would be a good followup to Dr. Young's Ideal Rectal Dilators, but perhaps the world isn't yet ready for such forward thinking. EEng (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • No matter how bouncily titillating such a play would be to us, I fear most people wouldn't be abreast of the context and thus it would fall flat.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
So you think it might have been a bust? EEng (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC) Perhaps Martinevans123 will have an opinion.
...Bronte Padded Longline Bra anyone? -- Horrid comment appealing to the basest of instincts, by ME123
ME123 never disappoints. EEng (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
(You'll find the "basest of instincts" is covered by the "complete the look" section.) Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Jane_Eyre_(1910_film)&oldid=1021235479"