Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charlie Chaplin/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 GrahamColm 10:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Charlie Chaplin[edit]

Charlie Chaplin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Loeba (talk) and TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one of the most famous men who's ever lived. Chaplin was a genius: not everyone realises that along with being a performer, he's the only person in history to direct, write, produce, edit and even compose the music for his films. He also has a fascinating story, rising from the poverty of Victorian London to become a Hollywood superstar...and then being shunned because of his political views and (effectively) forced out of the United States. We want him to have a featured article, and after working on it (intermitently) since Spring 2012 and receiving detailed GA and PR reviews, we believe it is finally ready. It's been both a challenge and a pleasure to write, and we hope you'll enjoy. -- Loeba (talk) and TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto[edit]

Support – I reviewed this fine piece of work at WP:GAN and the PR has only improved it further. The nominators should be congratulated for their hard work and thorough research. The prose is both informative and engaging, and the tone is as neutral as you can get, especially on a subject which would be very easy to become sycophantical about. I have read the article again and can see no issues. I do have a couple more questions though:

  • The second paragraph of the "Legacy" section starts with Christian Hansmeyer... Who was this? Who was he writing on behalf of? I cannot see a nearby introduction of him to this paragraph.
  • Do we know the location of his star on the Hollywood walk?

Certainly nothing important and it will not effect my support. Congratulations on a wonderful article! --CassiantoTalk 09:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words and support, and for all your help! I've introduced Hansmeyer and added the address of his star to the caption. --Loeba (talk) 11:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbh[edit]

Lede
A few optional suggestions:
  • '…rose to fame in the silent era.' Perhaps add (time period) after the silent era?
Just to clarify that I understood this correctly, do you mean you would like to see a time period, i.e. 1888–1928, added in brackets after 'the silent era'? I'm concerned that it would make the sentence look cluttered, especially as there is a link to a page about it. Also, as he didn't start making films until 25 years into the silent era adding those years could be confusing as the silent era pretty much began around the time he was born... Loeba, what do you think?TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Yes I don't really think adding the time period would add much...I imagine even readers without any knowledge of film history have a general idea of when films were silent. And if they're really not sure, "silent era" is linked (as you say). --Loeba (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I had in mind: 1888-1928, or something like that. It's a difficult judgement call. When I read it I straight away wondered when the silent era actually ran from. As you note, there's a link to it, so as you're both happy with that, it's good. Sandbh (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • '…from childhood in the Victorian era until a year before his death...' Perhaps this could include a period for the Victorian era, and a year of death.
  • 'He was sent to a workhouse twice before the age of nine; his father was absent, and his mother was committed to a mental asylum.' Are these events in chronological order?
I've rewritten this now, hope it's better: "As his father was absent and his mother struggled to make ends meet, he was sent to a workhouse twice before the age of nine. When he was fourteen, his mother was committed to a mental asylum." TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • 'Chaplin directed his films from an early stage…' in his career?
Added this!TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Hmm I personally think "in his career" goes without saying and is a bit redundant? Not a big deal though, I don't mind much either way. --Loeba (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, when I read this I had a mental picture of Mr Chaplin directing his films from a stage! The theatre-words tend to blur into one another. Sandbh (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Chaplin wrote, directed, produced, edited, wrote the music, and starred in most of his films.' One 'wrote' may be better. Perhaps 'composed the music'? Sandbh (talk) 11:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Background and childhood hardship
  • '…taking his mother to the infirmary.' Is the infirmary the same as the asylum?
No, she was taken from there to Cane Hill; I've clarified this in the text now.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • I found the last two paragraphs of this section a little hard to follow in terms of the sequence of events. Perhaps the fact that Sydney enrolled in the Navy could be added to the end of the penultimate paragraph? Then the last para. cld say something like, 'He lived alone for several days, searching for food and occasionally sleeping rough, until Sydney returned from his time with the Navy.[24]
  • BTW, was their any significance in Sydney returning from the Navy, on Chaplin's domestic situation apart from no longer having to live alone? Sandbh (talk) 11:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking at the article and commenting! I have incorporated some of your suggestions, a couple of the others I'm worried would increase wordiness without really increasing clarity? Regarding Sydney being in the Navy etc, I can completely understand how it may seem awkward to mention it where it is currently, but I also feel like it'd be a bit weird to mention it in the previous paragraph, ie "Sydney left home and enrolled in the Navy in 1901". It's not a significant event in Charlie's life, so it would stand out as odd detail IMO. The only reason we need to mention it at all, really, is so that (as you say) readers understand that Charlie was left alone for a while. If you definitely think it would improve the text to mention Sydney leaving in the prior paragraph then we can do that, but I wanted to give an explanation first. --Loeba (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding the thanks! Many good points raised; I've also corrected a couple, will get back to this soon!TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Yes, the comment about Sydney joining the Navy was a response to being surprised that he had returned from the Navy, without what precipitated this having been foreshadowed. Another difficult judgement call to do with information presentation. It's small beer really, so I leave it up to you as to which way you'd like to go. I won't mind either way. Sandbh (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Young performer
  • 'He recalled making his first amateur appearance at five years old…' Was it 5 or 4? The Hannah Chaplin article says 4.
  • We decided to specifically state it as Chaplin recalled it, and he claims he was 5. It's pretty likely he was a couple of years older than that (A. J. Marriot has done extensive research into Chaplin's performances, and age 7 is his conclusion) but it's all speculation so best to explicitly write "Chaplin recalled that..." and give his account. --Loeba (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, we should go with 5 since it's Chaplin's words. There's no actual evidence that the performance ever took place – I personally believe that it's just part of the myth of his childhood that he created to support his image as an artist. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • 'The manager sensed potential in Chaplin and he was soon on the stage.' Was the manager on stage or Chaplin? :)
  • I think that since the last male name is Chaplin's, it's fairly clear that "he" must refer to Chaplin? --Loeba (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
United Artists, Mildred Harris, and The Kid
  • 'Harris was by then legitimately pregnant, and on 7 July 1919, she gave birth to a son.' Sandbh (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.

Support: A fine piece of work. Sandbh (talk) 11:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! --Loeba (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review and Brianboulton[edit]

  • Refs 170 and 223: Same sources, different formats ("Encyclopaedia Britannica" and "Britannica (online)")
  • Ref 286: check page ref format
  • Ref 317: requires pp not p
  • Ref 322: "BBC News" should not be italicised (non-print medium)
  • Ref 326: Ditto
  • Ref 329: Which Weissman?
  • Ref 332: Source needs clarification - the linked site is in Norwegian.
  • Ref 338: check page ref format
  • Ref 340: Ditto
  • Ref 367: Which Weissman?
  • Ref 381: "Weissman 1996" does not exist
  • Ref 401: Source should not be italicised - see e.g. 319, 444 etc
  • Ref 427: What information is being cited to this source, which seems to contain no Chaplin-related material?
    • Ah, it used to contain the address ("1 Charlie Chaplin Walk") but they've changed the layout. I found a new source for this. --Loeba (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 429: It should be noted that this is in French
  • Ref 438: The source is "Charlie Chaplin Stamps", not "Blogger". What makes this a reliable high-quality source?
    • "Charlie Chaplin Stamps" is the name of the blog, so that's in the "title" field, but the publisher is Blogger. I know that this doesn't really meet the "high quality" criteria, but it's undeniably reliable because it includes images of all the stamps...I was hoping it would be acceptable for this reason? --Loeba (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cousins book: pub location missing
  • Kamin book: pub location given as a state rather than town/city. Is this as per the book?
  • Sklar book: pub location missing

Otherwise, all sources look good. No spotchecks carried out. Brianboulton (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks so much for doing that Brian, you have sharp eyes! Should all be fixed. --Loeba (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I recently carried out a detailed peer review and am satisfied that my concerns raised there have been fully addressed. This is a most impressive article which, once the sources quibbles have been fixed and a media review carried out, will I think fully warrant its status as among Wikipedia's best work. Brianboulton (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Enormous thanks for giving your support (and a lot of your time) to the article. --Loeba (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Brian for all the work you have done to help us improve this article! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

jimknut[edit]

Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "His first feature-length picture was The Kid (1921) …" → Chaplin's first feature was actually Tillie's Punctured Romance (1914). The Kid was his second, but the first that he wrote and directed as well as starred in.
Oops, changed it now. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Hmm but no-one really thinks of Tillie's Punctured Romance as "a Chaplin film" do they? He'd already appeared in a feature before The Kid, but it wasn't his feature IMO. --Loeba (talk) 11:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's true as well. I did have problems wording it and I think the modifications that I made make the sentence a bit 'clumsy'... TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
As it currently stands the intro section states: "In 1919, Chaplin co-founded the distribution company United Artists, which gave him complete control over his films. His first feature-length was The Kid (1921)…" while the Keystone section says "In November 1914, he had a supporting role in his first feature length comedy film, Tillie's Punctured Romance …" This just seems too contradictory so I think some rewording will be needed.Jimknut (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the Keystone bit is meant to say "the first comedy film"! It must have been changed when Brian was copy-editing, I hadn't noticed or I would have changed it back (which I have now). --Loeba (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He refused to move to sound films in the 1930s, instead producing City Lights (1931) and Modern Times (1936) without dialogue." → Actually both films have soundtracks consisting of music and sound effects and Modern Times has some dialogue scenes, including Chaplin singing in a gibberish language.
I've tried to improve the sentence, it now looks like this: "Although he adopted the use of a synchronised orchestral soundtrack and sound effects with the advent of sound films in the 1930s, he refused to include dialogue in City Lights (1931) and Modern Times (1936)." I agree with you that we need to clarify that he did not completely refuse to use sound technology, but I still would not say that the films have dialogue, at least if dialogue is defined as two characters discussing something. In both films, there are snippets of speech, but these always either come from a machine or are distorted; hence I think it is better to see them as sound effects rather than dialogue. The exception is of course the gibberish song, but even that is not really proper dialogue. What do you think, Loeba? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Personally, I think it's getting too specific for the lead. We go into details when discussing the films, but for the lead I think it's reasonable to say "he refused to move to sound films". City Lights and Modern Times aren't pure silent films, no, but essentially they still feel like them. So I think for the lead, which should be nice and brief, that's all we need to say. --Loeba (talk) 11:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's true as well. My only concern is the people who don't bother to read the whole article – but then again, I don't think we're really misleading anyone by saying that he refused sound films as most people probably equate sound films with films with spoken dialogue rather than think of the different aspects of sound. I think I might have been to quick to edit things! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
That's okay, you were just trying to address Jimknut's concerns. I'm going to change it back for now - Jimknut, let us know if you think it's a real problem. --Loeba (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OKay, I can live with the way it is now. Jimknut (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • "Saintsbury secured a role for Chaplin in Charles Frohman's production of Sherlock Holmes, where he played Billy the pageboy in three nationwide tours." → How about mentioning that Saintsbury played Holmes on these tours?.
I think Saintsbury played Holmes on only one tour though. But yes, it could potentially be a good idea to add a line about him, given that Saintsbury was a famous actor at the time. What do you think Loeba? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Yeah, I'm pretty sure Sainstbury was only on the first tour. It used to be worded to mention this, but as part of my trimming efforts it was removed...I don't think it's too important, personally. --Loeba (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Robinson biography (pp. 682-685), Sainstbury played Holmes in the first tour, followed by Kenneth Rivington and H. Lawrence Layton, respectively, in the second and third tours. Perhaps this could be added as a footnote. Jimknut (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The use of pathos was developed further with The Bank, in which Chaplin created a sad ending." → Just what was that sad ending? The article on The Bank doesn't say so could we include it here?
    • I'll add it to The Bank article later today? ;) --Loeba (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Essannay section there is nothing about his legal battles over Burlesque on Carmen and Triple Trouble.
    • It used to be mentioned (see this version for instance) but it was cut...you definitely think it's important enough to mention? --Loeba (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should we perhaps have a footnote about it? I do agree that it could be useful to have a mention about it because at least Triple Trouble wasn't really a Chaplin film but was compiled by the studio from material shot by him; but then again, I also do agree that it might make the main text too cluttered. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
      • Yes it would be good to have it in a footnote, but I'm struggling to see a way of fitting it in...if you or Jim can think of a way, the referencing info is available in that previous version I linked to? --Loeba (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll get back to this after Christmas if that's ok? I'd also like to add something about Triple Trouble as well. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
          • Yes, I think it's worth mention since Chaplin strived to have full artistic control over his work. Jimknut (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Done! I'm slightly confused as to how the issue was finally resolved, Robinson only says that the legal battle continued until 1922. I assume Essanay just gave up? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • "... and his treatment of the Tramp as "a sort of Pierrot."" → Link Pierrot.
Done. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • "... it was announced that he had married his newest protégée, 18-year-old Oona O'Neill." → I feel it is worth noting that she was the daughter of famed playwright Eugene O'Neill.
Moved from the footnote to the main text. --Loeba (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section title: "Limelight and banning from US" United States should be spelled out.
Done. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Yes, I think that's a good idea, added these details. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • I think it should be noted (possibly in the "Legacy" section) that almost all of Chaplin's films have been released on DVD and many on blu-ray as well. Jimknut (talk) 05:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for taking time to give us feedback, it is much appreciated! You've raised many good points, I've changed some bits in the article already and will get back to making more changes soon. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • Yes, thanks from me too. --Loeba (talk) 11:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

  • Lead section: "In 1919, Chaplin co-founded the distribution company United Artists, which gave him complete control over his films. His first feature-length was The Kid (1921)" For the second sentence can we alter it to read "His first feature for UA was The Kid"? This way we do not contradict the statement made later in the Keystone section that Tillie's Punctured Romance was his first feature.
    • I'm sorry that I'm being stubborn over this (!) but I really think the first "Chaplin feature" was The Kid. It's pretty much always spoken about in that way. Even our own article on the film states "This was Chaplin's first full-length movie." In the Chaplin article, the fact that it comes after the statement about founding UA seems to make it pretty clear that it's his first personal feature (which is what counts)...I toyed around with adding "his first directed feature" but it just looks redundant and unnecessary to me...plus it makes it sound like he could have appeared in several other features that he didn't direct, whereas it was only one - and with only a supporting role at that... --Loeba (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keystone section: "During the filming of his tenth picture he clashed with director Mabel Normand, and was almost released from his contract." Can we source this? And why not identify the film in question? (i.e. Mabel at the Wheel, which, by the way, should now count as Chaplin's eleventh picture due to the recent [2010] discovery of A Thief Catcher)
    • It is covered by the next subsequent reference. I added the film title and fixed it to "eleventh". --Loeba (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • With this issues dealt with along with the others above I am set to give my support for the article. Jimknut (talk) 18:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Excellent article that I consider feature worthy. Jimknut (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Big big thanks. --Loeba (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat[edit]

Support. An excellent article and one worthy of being an FA. There are three minor suggestions for you to consider:

Lead

  • "struggled to make ends meet": is this encyclopaedic? Would "struggled financially" be more suitable?

Background and childhood hardship

  • "Hannah Chaplin was committed": Chaplin not needed here—we already know her surname.

Young performer

  • "The manager sensed potential in Chaplin, and he was soon on the stage": which "he"?

These points are nothing too onerous and nothing that will stop me supporting this excellent article. – SchroCat (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those points have been fixed - major thanks for your support! --Loeba (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld[edit]

Support This is quite an excellent, engaging piece. Given the amount of sources on Chaplin, it would be easy to go into an excessive amount of detail. Covering a topic as big as Chaplin in one article is very difficult and challenging and I believe you've more than done a fine job of researching and summarizing his career. I was particularly impressed with the filmmaking section in particular which illustrates that the writers clearly know what they're talking about and have much experience of his films and techniques. Only one thing surprised me though; in the writing and condensing of the article I'd have expected you to split into sub articles and then cut down. Early life in particular I'd expect a sub article on somebody like Chaplin and I think it would be a positive thing to cover periods of his career in more detail in sister articles for the cinema buffs like myself who might want to read further. Something to consider in the future perhaps. Loeba and Susie in particular and others who've copyedited and been involved with the peer review I congratulate you on producing such a valuable well-written article on a cinema giant like Charlie Chaplin! Superb! Just a few minor things below:

In the lead is it possible you could state the name of the film of his debut on the screen? Something like "Chaplin was scouted for the film industry, and made his first appearance in 1914 in Keystone Studios's xxx." Also after "He abandoned the Tramp in his later films, which include Monsieur Verdoux (1947), Limelight (1952), and A King in New York (1957), while continuing to deal with serious themes." is it possible you could add "His last film, a Countess from Hong Kong, was released in 1967? Just a suggestion which I think would give the reader an immediate idea of his debut and final film and scope. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Early life is excellent and appropriate for this main article but I'm surprised given his status and the amount of material existing there isn't a sub article "Early life of Charlie Chaplin". I think a lot of readers, myself included, would find such an article interesting and valuable. Something to consider at a later date perhaps!

  • " The manager sensed potential in Chaplin, who was soon on the stage.[35] His first role was a newsboy in H. A. Saintsbury's Jim, a Romance of Cockayne. It opened in July 1903, but the show was unsuccessful and closed after two weeks." I think it would read a bit better if you wrote the first part as "The manager sensed potential in Chaplin, who was given his first role on a stage as a newsboy in H. A. Saintsbury's Jim, a Romance of Cockayne."
  • "Chaplin soon found work with a new company" -do we know what company this was?
    • It's the company that ran the Repairs sketch (mentioned in the same sentence). I don't think there's a name given for them (maybe they exclusively did Repairs?) --Loeba (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When the act finished touring in July 1907, the 18-year-old was an accomplished comedy performer." I'd probably write this as "By the time that the act had finished touring in July 1907, the 18-year-old had become an accomplished comedic performer", something about the tense I think, you might disagree!
  • "His most successful role was a drunk called the "Inebriate Swell", which drew him considerable recognition" Can you reword "considerable" here as it still repeats on me from what you said just a few lines earlier, or perhaps reword to "significant" in the earlier instance?
  • Travels, Paulette Goddard, and Modern Times paragraph has inconsistency in the spelling of focussed/focused. Personally I prefer focused, I'm sure both are generally accepted in British English as the article appears to e using but it should be consistent of course!

♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, your kind comments have made me very happy. :) All the above points have been dealt with I think, thanks for reading through the article. I've actually thought myself that "Early life of Charlie Chaplin" could easily be its own article - one day, maybe! --Loeba (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very late on this, but wanted to comment on the idea of having sub-articles for different phases of Chaplin's life. I agree that it is a good idea, especially for his early life as there's so much uncertainty about it. I'd definitely be interested in tackling that, but alas, I don't have the time for it at the moment :( TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Thanks, You've balanced the article out wonderfully I think, reviews on the more significant films where needed and also covers the things like monuments and tributes very well. You should be very proud of this one! Somebody like Chaplin should have detailed sub articles covering his life in stages like Early life and career, then articles on his terms at each studios perhaps but I can understand you wanting a long break from Chaplin editing after this magnificent effort! Politics of Charlie Chaplin would be an interesting one too!! You've done the hardest thing first though and have written an article which I had intended to work on since 2007 but was too intimidated by the scale of it and the possible sources!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notes (Ian Rose)[edit]

  • Need an image review, unless I missed it.
  • Just skimming the article, I was glad to see a brief mention at least of criticism of the subject as an artist, but didn't notice much or anything in the way of comparison with other silent comics like Keaton, Lloyd, etc. Of course you have to reflect the balance in the sources but I assume they discussed his work in relation to his contemporaries -- just a few sentences might be useful.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re images, User:GermanJoe checked them out for the GA review and seemed to think they were all fine. I have asked him to add a review here though. As for comparison with the other silent comics, there used to be a comment about the modern popularity of Buster Keaton in the Legacy section (see this version, but this was removed at the advice of User:Brianboulton during the PR. I do rather agree with him now: for instance, (as I reasoned at the PR) I wouldn't expect to see a comparison with The Beatles on The Rolling Stones article (or vice versa). What do you think? --Loeba (talk) 12:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Loeba, I don't think there's much need to compare Chaplin with other stars.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Yes, I've seen the PR discussion and there is a fine line between getting into a general discussion on silent comedy or who's considered 'better' now, which is not the goal, and placing the subject in proper context, which is part of the FAC criteria. Since (as I'd expect in such an article) you discuss his influences, and his influence on others, it seemed logical to hear something of how his style contrasted with some of his contemporaries, particularly as so many of them got their break at Keystone. As I say, though, it does come down to reflecting the weight/balance in the biographical literature you're working from. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, texts on Chaplin don't seem to compare his style to the other comedians...There are obviously books that do this, but not really the dedicated Chaplin biographies. They often mention his popularity compared to Keaton, which is why we initially included a reference to this, but not so much the stylistic differences...I suppose it would be good to have a sentence or two in the relevant section though. I'll see what I can find. --Loeba (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. At the very least, since we discuss his influence on later film makers, it might be worth noting (reliably sourced) influences Chaplin had on famous contemporaries. For instance isn't Harold Lloyd's 'Lonesome Luke' character considered derivative of Chaplin's 'Tramp'? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lloyd initially tried to imitate Chaplin, but he changed to his own unique character and this is the one that brought him success. See this clip for instance, from roughly 6 minutes in. So I'm not sure it's quite right to say Chaplin was a major influence on Lloyd, outside of the general influence CC had in slowing down comedy etc that is mentioned in the Legacy section. --Loeba (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Returning, I'm still a little surprised by the resistance about this point... Loeba mentioned it might be good "to have a sentence or two in the relevant section" so have you abandoned that thought? Further, no-one said Chaplin influenced the character that brought Lloyd fame, it just seemed an interesting tidbit that Chaplin's stature within a year of developing the Tramp was strong enough for another budding comic to rip him off (perhaps Lloyd wasn't the only one, I don't know). Anyway, I think I've involved myself enough in this content discussion that I should recuse myself from delegate duties. I certainly wouldn't oppose promotion over this but I will let the comments stand, and am happy to let Graham close this in his own time, whether we come to an agreement or not. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I agree that we could mention Lonesome Luke (neither Robinson nor Maland mention Chaplin's influence on Lloyd though; does Louvish? I think Lynn mentions this, but given that he is quite eccentric when it comes to his use of sources, I would not like to rely on his book) given that the character was such an early imitation. Perhaps we could also add to the section about The Kid that after Chaplin started making features, other comedians followed (I think we even had something like this before?). But those are really the only instances where I think it makes any sense to add comparisons between Chaplin and other comedians of the era within the main text. We've already mentioned that he was imitated by many other comedians, to the point that he began suing them for copyright infringement – i.e. he was hugely influential to silent comedy at the time. If we want to compare Chaplin and contemporaries further, we would have to somehow convey that it's really the post-1950s film historians who have been interested in comparing them so intensively. We could mention this, but what exactly should we write? That film historians have liked to compare Chaplin and Keaton because they made slapstick comedies in Hollywood in the silent era, and although Chaplin was FAR more popular during the silent era, after the 1950s some scholars have liked to argue about which one was the greater artist? That scholars A, B and C think Keaton is the superior, but X, Y and Z think the complete opposite? I guess what I am trying to say is not that I completely oppose mentioning the rivalry, but I just cannot come up with an idea of how to go about doing it without having the article to contribute to the anachronistic idea that a Chaplin/Keaton/Lloyd rivalry existed in the 1920s...TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Apologies Ian, when you wrote "Fair enough", I took that to mean that a stylistic comparison wasn't necessary, and then you seemed to move on to talking about CC's influence on his main contemporaries, which I said I felt was inappropriate. Certainly many comedians did imitate Chaplin, but (as Susie says) this is mentioned in the Mutual section ("In 1917, professional Chaplin imitators were so widespread that he took legal action") and I feel that is sufficient? Like her, in theory I'm not necessarily resistant to an explicit mention of Lloyd/Keaton, but I'm struggling to see a way to fit it in smoothly (and I certainly don't think it is essential information)...@GrahamColm: I'd certainly be grateful if you could let us know if you think this or anything else is necessary for promotion. The goal is to get this on the mainpage for February 2nd, so it would be great to get this wrapped up as soon as possible. Many thanks --Loeba (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image check (GermanJoe)[edit]

Image check - all OK (PD-age, PD-not renewed, own work). Sources and authors provided.

  • As noted, an initial image check has already been done during GA, quickly checking all images again.
  • Where necessary, uploads have been provided with detailed commentary about the original copyright situation and missing renewals - great work, OK.
  • A problematic gallery and one caption have been fixed during the GA-review - OK.
  • Statue photos are always a point of discussion on Commons, but the only image of a UK-statue should be OK copyright-wise (having checked the current Commons situation) - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 12:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much Joe! @Ian Rose: just pinging you to let you know this has been done now. --Loeba (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kailash29792[edit]

I do not have much to say, except for these:

  • Shouldn't the infobox have a more popular and better recognised image of Chaplin? I'm not used to seeing him without a moustache.
  • Any info on his height?

More coming soon. -- Kailash29792 (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion on the talk page about the lead image, where it was agreed that it's best to show Chaplin out of costume. He was a real man, not just the Tramp, and this is a biography about his life. I kind of understand your point, but there are plenty of images of him as the Tramp within the article (and everyone knows what his costume looked like anyway). As for his height, umm I could probably find a statistic but I'm not sure how useful/necessary that is? Thanks for looking and commenting. --Loeba (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the feedback! It is true that Chaplin is more recognisable when he is in the Tramp costume. However, like Loeba said, given that the article is about Chaplin as a person, I think it is preferable to have an image of him as himself rather than in costume in the lead. As for his height, I'm not sure if anyone is completely sure what his height was (I've heard anything from 5'3 to 5'7). I'm not sure if we should include it – I think it's necessary information only in the case of runway models and people who are specifically known for their height (e.g. people who have been declared the tallest/shortest people on earth etc.). TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Ok good work guys! I have no other suggestions to improve the article. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:36, 14 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Charlie_Chaplin/archive1&oldid=1151014722"