Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Life and Death of 9413: a Hollywood Extra/archive1

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 21 December 2019 [1].


Nominator(s): — Hunter Kahn 05:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is, at least in my opinion, a truly fascinating little film, and an underappreciated one despite its influence on American avant-garde cinema. It's less than 15 minutes long and is available to view on YouTube if you're interested in checking out the movie itself... — Hunter Kahn 05:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Source for runtime?
    • I was under the impression this information didn't need a source since the film itself serves as a source of the information? Most FAs on films don't have a source for this. But if I'm wrong here I can try to dig one up... — Hunter Kahn 03:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • James 2001 link goes to the Taves 2001 chapter
    • Fixed this. I set it to automatically go to the page in the chapter where he discusses this film in particular, but if necessary I can make it just go to the beginning of the overall chapter... — Hunter Kahn 03:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Krinsky's first name doesn't match source, and should include full date here
  • Merritt link returns 404 error
  • Wollstein link goes to the general section page rather than the direct source
    • Yeah, there had been a biography on the NY Times page, but it seems to be gone now, and the Internet Archive didn't capture a snapshot, unfortunately. Since this source was only reinforcing a fact already cited by two other sources, I've just gone ahead and removed it altogether. — Hunter Kahn 03:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zecević is missing the accent, number listed as volume is actually issue

Quite a bit of cleanup work needed on citation formatting here. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

  • I'm afraid that with only a source review (vital though that is, thanks as always Nikki) after almost a month, it's time to archive this. Given the lack of other commentary, I wouldn't object to waiving the usual two-week waiting period before a re-nom, but I wonder if a shot at Peer Review mightn't be preferable first. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.