Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/It Is the Law/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 promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2018 [1].

It Is the Law

Nominator(s): Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a lost 1924 silent film, the final work of the prolific but largely-forgotten director J. Gordon Edwards. This is admittedly quite short as far as potential Featured Article, although it would be far from the shortest FA if awarded the bronze star. Despite its length, this is a considerably more comprehensive treatment of the film than any single modern source offers (lost films obviously have fewer retrospective analyses), and I believe I have reviewed all significant period sources. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Chetsford

This is a very nice, concise article about a film lost to history. The only issues I have ...

Several of the cast members appear to be unsourced?

Everything except Fernandez / Valerie should be sourceable to the AFI page; I agree that's not entirely clear given the formatting, but I'd rather not spam up the cast list with a reference tag on each line. Thoughts? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should "This was Herbert Heyes final silent film ..." have a possessive apostrophe after "Heyes"?

That, plus an s. Corrected. To my embarrassment. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The line "the Library of Congress is not aware of any extant copies" is sourced to this [2] which only seems to indicate the LOC is not in possession of any copies, not that it's not aware of any copies.

Actually, that is what it means. The LoC's Silent Feature Film Database lists archival copies in the possession of other holders if it lacks such a copy itself; indeed, that was the primary purpose of the database and the surveys that populated it. "No holdings located in archives" means "none exist that we know of." Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chetsford (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay sounds good, I support. Chetsford (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:It Is the Law lobby cards.jpg: Use and assuming that there was no copyright notice tagged version license are fine for me.
File:It Is the Law lantern slide.jpg: Use and assuming that there was no copyright notice tagged version license are fine for me.

ALT text is OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

~~Per MOS:DATEUNIFY, the all-numeric date format generally shouldn't be used for publication date, but only access/archivedate~~

Is this a recent MOS change? ISO 8601 publication dates were formerly acceptable, as I recall (presumably as "the format expected in the citation style being used"?). I'll change this if really required, but... Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I've misremembered the guidance. Fine as-is. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Be consistent in how you list McFarland as a publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. "Company" removed from publishers, per... some guideline, somewhere, I think. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber

An interesting story - notes below:

~~In 1922, theatrical agent Walter Jordan encouraged Elmer Rice to dramatize an unpublished novel by Hayden Talbot.~~ ~~- I'd add descriptors for Rice and Talbot - who are they?~~

Tried to improve on this. Rice was a pretty big name in theater even in 1922 (although it would be several more years until he would be a Pulitzer winner). I'd like to think that the article gives sufficient context to him (and the link has plenty more for those interested). Talbot... was an occasional screenwriter and dubiously successful novelist (I have mixed opinions whether he's worth retaining as a redlink), but it feels clunky to introduce him as a novelist who wrote an unpublished novel. Let me know if you'd like me to rework this section further. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree applying a descriptor to Talbot sounds tricky. "Would-be novelist" is probably most accurate but comes across as pejorative...sigh. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Arthur Hohl reprised the role of Woodruff from Broadway~~ ~~- the Broadway production has only been mentioned in the lead at this point - it's hard as production comes lower down in the article than cast, but some introduction might be good here.~~

Hopefully handled without being too badly redundant? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

perfect Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Rice's adaptation of Talbot's work, It Is the Law, again featured a story told in flashback~~ ~~- do we have any info here on whether the novel had the same name or did Rice coin it for the play?~~

:* Per Palmieri, all this stuff shared the same title. Reworded to make that clear. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Curtis Benson wrote the screenplay~~ ~~who is Benson?~~

Benson had a long and storied career as a typographical error for Curtis Benton, which I've corrected. As far as Benton goes... he did a handful of screenplays for minor films and had a couple of bit acting parts. I've delinked him, as there's really not much else to say about him (Solomon's monograph of Fox Films doesn't even mention him except in credit lists) Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~was there a particular time where it was found to be lost?~~

Nothing from reliable sources, which isn't surprising. Very few films have a set time or date when it was realized that they were lost; rather, as the history of the film industry gradually became more important, efforts to locate much of the early catalog failed. The Library of Congress survey (circa 2013) was probably the official confirmation that the film is believed lost, although reliable sources universally agree that any silent-era Fox film with no obviously extant copy was probably destroyed in the 1937 vault fire, as noted in the article. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - all looks good comprehensiveness and prose-wise Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SN54129

It's true that it is rather short :) and of course, by the nature of the topic, there's not much to be done about that. But, to be fully compliant with 1b, I'd suggest a little more context. In fact, any context! A section preceeding the plot; perhaps describing contemporaneous trends, where this film was similar / different to others of its vintage. Has anything of that ilk been discussed in the literature? The Receptionn section touches on soe this and acts as a sufficient "aftermath." Nice article, all things considered. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure this is possible. Quite a few films of this era are demonstrably part of industry trends (vamp films, super-budget historical epics), or were part of studio-designated series (such as the Fox ultra-low-budget line marketed as Excel Films). This... isn't one of those films. But perhaps more were made simply because the studio could, without any real context for why they were selected. Solomon's monograph on Fox Films is probably the definitive work on the company's early years, and doesn't give any hints. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jim

A short article picked over by some experienced editors seems to have left little of consequence for me. I did wonder why some of the cast without wikipedia articles are unlinked and some are red-linked. What's your criterion? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I try to redlink people who I believe might reasonable earn their article at some point. It's always a tough game to play, because our coverage of actors from the silent film era is just about as terrible as our coverage of films from the silent film era! To that end, though, I've delinked Byron Douglas, who never had a starring role or much of a career despite two dozen-ish credits. Mona Palma (née Mimi Palmieri) had a short, but higher profile, acting career. I don't have enough material to write a bio stub for her at the moment, but I think it's reasonably likely that one is possible in future. In any case, thanks for taking a look and offering support! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it would be something like that, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:13, 24 May 2018 (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. --Laser brain (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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