Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/How Brown Saw the Baseball Game/archive2

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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

How Brown Saw the Baseball Game

Featured article review/How Brown Saw the Baseball Game/archive1

Nominator(s): Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. How Brown Saw the Baseball Game is a 1907 comedy film that has mostly languished in obscurity, which is a shame, because you'd think a film about a drunk guy watching baseball would have a cult following. The article, while short, is as comprehensive as possible, and it received a GA review by Khazar2 (talk · contribs) and has been through FAC before. Some copyediting work has been done between the two FACs. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Taylor Trescott. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ Support from Crisco 1492

As I have written several articles on lost or probably lost films already, I think this will be an interesting article to review.

comprised 350 feet (110 m) of film - Perhaps a footnote about how long this would be at 16 FPS? Not necessary, of course, but most readers will not really understand feet of film.

I'll see what I can do. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is Silent Era considered a reliable source? I've never used it, but then my specialty is the kind of films that would never get in.

Definitely yes. It always cites sources and is used in lots of FAs (The Carpet from Bagdad) and FLs (Charlie Chaplin filmography) Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've copyedited, be sure to double check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your copyedits look good. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been unable to find File:SiegmundLubin.gif in an online archive of Moving Picture World. I did find another picture, which I will post soon. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the images. commons:Category:Siegmund Lubin. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. I swapped the image. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any of these useful? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've cited the non-advertisements in the article already. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's everything from me. Good job! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of complaints from the unpleasable Curly Turkey

Support. The only of my concerns left unaddressed from the previous FAC (publication date of the image) has now been addressed (with a different image). Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image check

Only one file: File:Siegmund Lubin in 1913.jpg. Properly tagged and in the Public Domain (published 1913). Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both for the review! Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support The image was the only thing to hold me back last time, and now that is obviously cleared up. (I think the new one is so much better though). One nitpick:

You should have retrieval dates for all online sources. Right now I see a couple that dont have any.

Beerest 2 talk 19:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Thanks for taking a look! Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Comments by ColonelHenry

Will be posting some comments shortly (10-11JAN14).--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tough article to review as much as a tough article to write since (1) it is a very short article and might be the shortest FA if promoted (which means there's fewer places for less-than-FA-quality work to hide), (2) the article's subject has not survived and cannot be used to improve the article's coverage, (3) the article's subject is only known by the reports of others long dead and no one around now has likely seen the film, (4) there's not much out there about the topic outside of the film and the reviews.

I did a copyedit on the article to polish the writing and rearrange some material for better continuity (let me know your thoughts on my copyediting/revision). I consider the first polishing, since there are other things I need to reread and think about and I'll come back in the next day or two and give it another look toward copyediting. Structurally, there are a few things that need to be worked on--better organization. I don't know what would be better--but the arrangement seems a bit disorganized in a way that I can't put into words (but try to below).

Hmm. It wouldn't be the shortest FA. Tropical Depression Ten (2005) and Miss Meyers are both shorter. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know...one of my personal challenges is to write the shortest FA.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Have you considered putting the image of Lubin in the infobox?

Doesn't really seem relevant there. There's really no relevant image, like Si Tjonat. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking the infobox looks odd without an image only to have an image further down in the article floating between two sections. I would disagree with it being not relevant (like if a frame from the film appeared and was usable, that frame would be more relevant), but I can defer to your judgment on that matter if other users don't see a problem.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Found a newspaper advertisement and added it to the infobox. What do you think? Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 16:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like that very much. Good work. One addition...if you have a year for that advertisement, add it to the caption--i.e., something like "Newspaper advertisement (1908)" You mention 1903 on the image's information, which I assume is a typo for 1908.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of the sources tell what kind of film stock was used? or the frame rate? If you knew that, you could estimate how long the film was. 8mm film can be 12-15 feet per minute, but modern 35mm film is about 90 feet per minute.
I am actually surprised there isn't any single-frame stills of the film--many other lost films have them available.
Release and legacy --> I think "reception" would be a better word than "legacy" because (1) it is largely a section discussing critical reviews and (2) how can a film that no longer exist really have a legacy?

Agreed and done. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The last two paragraphs of the "Release and legacy" section might better belong with the material in the "Production" section.

I'll probably merge some, but keep most of the critical discussion there. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Either way would work. I just wonder if some of the content would work better there and we'd only know by experimenting.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support the promotion of this article to featured article status.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Beerest 2

Taylor Trescott needs a source spotcheck, so I will do it.

Both sources in Ref 1 correctly suport the plot.
Ref 2 goes to BFI. I had to click "show more" to see it, but yes Ref 2 is correct.
Ref 3 is correct in both uses,but I changed the wording to represent the source better while avoiding copyvio.
All instances of Ref 4 are correct.
Usage of Ref 5 looks good.
Ref 6 8 and 10 are not online, but I will assume good faith
Ref 7 supports the film being shown in 1908.
Ref 9, in both uses, is good.
Ref 11 is used proparly; the review is in the source (which is PD)
Ref 12 supports Edison's film being released in 1906
Ref 13 is snippet view, but when I put the phrase into google books I was able to see it, so looks good.

I conclude that all sources are used correctly and there is no OR in the article. Beerest 2 talk 17:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ColonelHenry for doing a copyedit and supporting, and Beerest 2 for the spotcheck. Both are very much appreciated. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 17:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.