Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sound film

Sound film

Self-nomination. Stable article judged A-class by both WikiProject Filmmaking and WikiProject Films. I'd like to take this opportunity to make note of the significant contribution editor Walloon has made not only to this article but to Wikipedia's coverage of media history generally.—DCGeist 19:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very long. A lot of images, further reading and external links: care for a cutdown before I support it? Wiki-newbie 20:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's no further reading section--every item listed in Sources is cited in the text. All external links are to professional sources with valuable detailed information on various aspects of the subject matter; descriptions have been provided in all cases to facilitate use of this section. Article is long because it covers an international topic involving complex developments in technology, commerce, and aesthetics and resolves a large number of discrepancies among published and online sources; can you identify what area or areas of the article you feel go into unhelpful detail?—DCGeist 20:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support I've had my eye casually watching this page for a while now, and it's been a wonder to see it slowly grow into a shining example of quality. Compare this version just before DCGeist started working on it to the current version, and you can clearly see the quality and breadth of work, all clearly referenced and notated. (And yes, Walloon's work and contributions should also be well-noted.) As a member of WikiProject Filmmaking, I'm proud to include this among our articles and believe that it is well above and beyond the quality of all three of our current featured articles (35 mm film, Panavision, and WGA screenwriting credit system). It is indeed long, but considering the subject matter, an appropriate length, IMHO. Were this to be an article on an obscure technical detail or a specific film sound system, I would expect a shorter and more concise article to be enough for featured-status. My only objection is the Aesthetic quality section; the two lists are awkward because one is a POV-list of the most notable silents and the other is a US National Registry list of the early sound films - there isn't a common standard for inclusion between the two, and there is the POV issue. I also disagreed with the assessments on which films would be ranked highly against the silents...just seems a bit too POV. Potentially subjective lists like that also tend to invite listcruft; I'd try to find a way to either make the lists less subjective (both coming from a common authoritative and citable source) or somehow re-edit the section to address these issues. Best of luck and look forward to seeing that star! :) Girolamo Savonarola 22:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for your very kind words. I've sought to address the issue you've flagged by restructuring the lists of historically lauded transitional-period silent and sound films so they both reflect the collective judgment of critics and industry professionals polled in recent years by major Western media entities. Impt point: I by no means sought to restrict the roster of polls considered (currently those of Time Out, The Viilage Voice, and Sight & Sound) to ones administered from English-speaking countries. If anyone could lead me to reliable results (beyond just the top 10) from the polls conducted by Editorial Jaguar (Spain, 2001), FIAF (Franco-American, 1995), Kinovedcheskie (Russia, 1995), and reported international polls held in France, Germany, and Romania in 1995, the article would be most grateful.—DCGeist 02:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is an extremely comprehensive, well-researched article. Perhaps my only problem with it might be its tone in some sections.

Perhaps Ich küsse Ihre Hand, Madame (1929) would be better remembered today if costar Marlene Dietrich, instead of kissing their hands, had been invited to sing.

Comments like this run up against WP:OR and sound too breezily casual. But again, great article. --Zantastik talk 04:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for your comment, Zantastik. I'm not quite sure what to do here. The caption might have struck you as a little breezy, but it's anything but casual. It addresses four points pretty efficiently: (a) it acknowledges the oddity of the image (by far the best available) directly contradicting the title; (b) it informs the reader that the renowned Dietrich starred in the film; (c) it informs the reader that Dietrich, renowned for her singing, didn't sing in the film; and (d) it underscores that this historically momentous film is virtually unknown today. If it flirts with OR, it does so only in an uncontentious way that virtually anyone interested in film history might well come up with. Any suggestions?—DCGeist 05:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC

I was under the minor impression that Dietrich wasn't a household name until 1930 (The Blue Angel). Girolamo Savonarola 12:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly right. As soon as someone (Von Sternberg) had the bright idea to have her sing on film, both she and the movie (Der Blaue Engel—the first talkie in which you could hear her) became household names.—DCGeist 13:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, well, it is comprehensive and verifiable enough. Wiki-newbie 11:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --WS 16:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nice article, but according to WP:SIZE, the lead should be approx. 3 paragraph long. CG 19:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 2d lede graf added per CG's comment. The definition of the topic and its importance are straightforward enough that a 3d graf doesn't seem called for.—DCGeist 20:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All of the fair use images need rationales. Also some are missing identification of their current copyright holders. Andrew Levine 04:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks, Andrew. Rationales have now been provided for all. Due to the combination of (a) the images' age (one is from 1934; the rest are all at least 75 years old) and (b) the fact that they are all works of corporate authorship (images from, publicity photos for, or posters of commercial films and commercial film systems, except for one magazine cover), it is extremely difficult (if possible at all) to trace the current copyright holders (if any) for most of the images, due to changes in corporate ownership and exchanges of assets over seven and a half decades. By the same token, (a) not one film or other artifact is illustrated more than once and (b) the use of each image falls easily within, even at the very heart of, fair use standards.—DCGeist 05:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 03:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]