Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Un célebre especialista sacando muelas en el gran Hotel Europa/archive2

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 20 December 2019 [1].

Un célebre especialista sacando muelas en el gran Hotel Europa[edit]

Nominator(s): Kingsif (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a really old Venezuelan film! There's not much information, given the collective lack of info from Venezuela in general and the age of it, however, I have covered everything that is publicly available and there are not dramatic areas of lack (very little information exists on the production, to the point there's no solid idea of the director). It has been worked on and improved a lot since the last FAC, which was rather quickly closed for needing better prose - it's had two ce's since, and I would love any and all constructive criticism on how to improve it even more. I feel now more than the last time that it's a good candidate for FA. Kingsif (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John M Wolfson[edit]

Just a few preliminary observations/comments:

  • Whatever happened to the Hotel Europa? Does is still exist, or has it been demolished, and if it was demolished when?
    • At some point between 1898 and the 1950s, the hotel was rebuilt as the Hotel Zulia, changing ownership; in 1956 it was demolished to build the Maracaibo municipal council building at the site. Diccionario General del Zulia Kingsif (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I feel like that should go somewhere in the article, as a single sentence, but I'm not quite sure where. Perhaps in "Production and director", although maybe also in "Modern critical views." – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added a sentence to the bottom of the Film content section; tell me if you feel it fits elsewhere/could be better written. Kingsif (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which Duran brother is which in the photograph?

I'll almost certainly think of more stuff later. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at some more stuff later. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. Looking through this article again I see no further major issues and support promotion of this article. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:Frame_from_"Un_célebre_especialista_sacando_muelas_en_el_gran_Hotel_Europa".jpg: if the author is unknown, how do you know they died over 70 years ago? Same with File:ZPA_image_of_dental_extraction_1890s_Zulia.png, File:Newspaper_clipping_announcing_the_showing_of_films_in_Maracaibo,_January_1897.png, File:Image_from_"Gran_Hotel_Europa"_film,_1897.png
  • File:The_Hotel_Europa_in_Maracaibo,_c._1897.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Image_from_"Gran_Hotel_Europa"_film,_1897.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The images are from videos, or, in the case of the hotel image, a higher quality version that is discussed in one of the videos (included in article sources). It's explained that they're from the 1890s, which puts them in the PD in terms of Venezuela, which should be fine. For extra security, we look to PD in the US: regards the author, that would be the director, since at the time that vaguely meant 'person with the recording device'. The only proposed directors are Manuel Trujillo Durán and Gabriel Veyre, both of whom died over 70 years ago, so no matter which it was, he died long enough ago. As a note, the images were also released before 1924, but since they were not released in the US, I wouldn't know if that version of PD-old applies.
    • If you have suggestions for how to improve the descriptions etc. on the commons image pages, I'd appreciate the help - I tried some improvement a little while ago re. commons file pages but couldn't think of much to do. Kingsif (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • For each of File:Newspaper_clipping_announcing_the_showing_of_films_in_Maracaibo,_January_1897.png, File:The_Hotel_Europa_in_Maracaibo,_c._1897.jpg and File:Image_from_"Gran_Hotel_Europa"_film,_1897.png , the image description indicates at least doubt that these were included in the film. Venezuela PD status depends on publication, not creation, which is why the use of PD-Venezuela requires inclusion of publication details. Publication date will also impact US status - the pre-1924 tag applies only if we can verify a publication before that date. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • So, more detail and finding maybe the images' archive entries, or moving to fair use if there's no solid evidence, would be the way to go? Kingsif (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Absolutely: more information would be very helpful in determining if there is an applicable PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've added more information to some of the descriptions, and a rationale hidden by the PD Venezuela tags. I feel the video of the reconstruction, which was created by the Venezuelan Association of Film Exhibitors, holds some authority - info from that video and its description added. I wonder what to add for the newspaper clipping - it is an image of a newspaper from 1897, that much is obvious (it wasn't in the film) does it count as 'other visual work'? Kingsif (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Now updated all files. Kingsif (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • The newspaper image would be covered by the pre-1924 tag with regards to US status. With regards to Venezuelan status, it's not clear to me whether "broadcast" is intended to be limited to audiovisual works or any media; if you speak Spanish, might you be able to interpret the linked statute? Also, not seeing more information added to File:Image_from_"Gran_Hotel_Europa"_film,_1897.png? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • @Nikkimaria: re. image Yes, I was debating that image. The full image of it is featured in the Historia Viva episode about Manuel (at about the half-hour mark), and it is instead stated to be from the brothers' home collection, suggesting it was taken in their studio. Given the lower quality of the image and the apparent lack of connection, I was wondering what to do with it; I've now replaced it with a different image, of only Manuel, but which has a clear history; it was featured in an article about the brothers in 2013, where grandchildren are interviewed and explain that image's background. The image is better quality and the provenance clearer. re. PD-Ven there is an English breakdown at Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Venezuela#General_rules. Relevant parts are probably For photographs and also reproductions and prints obtained by a comparable process rights expire after 60 years following the disclosure of the work, or 60 years after having been made if they have not been disclosed during that period. Such periods are counted from January 1 of the year following that of disclosure or making, as the case may be. and The copyright in anonymous or pseudonymous works expires after 60 years counted from January 1 of the year following that of the first publication thereof. – 'broadcast' seems to mean either published or created for whichever expires first, and works with unknown authors can be counted by only publication date. Kingsif (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SN54129[edit]

Sup Kingsif, nice one. Refs could do with a tidy: inconsistency with publication location, pp for chapters, etc., also sync your sfns with your sources.
Take care! ——SerialNumber54129 16:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit new with the sfn, but I can do the other clean-up. Any pointers on how to sync with sources? Kingsif (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Schweet, Kingsif, no worries. I've adjusted them with this edit, see what I changed. The basic principle is that whatever's in the {{sfn| has to match the harvid in the source; that includes using only the year in the former, for example, but it's not a problm here as the |date= parameter holds the full date for you. It does become slightly more problematic when you have multiple sfns from the same author and year, but cross that bridge when you come to it! It took me a while to get the hang of it too when i first started using them, but it's well worth, methinks. All the best! ——SerialNumber54129 16:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Along with below, refs cleaned up. Now consistent throughout. Kingsif (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

The majority of the sources are in Spanish, so I'm not in a position to assess them on the basis of quality/reliability, but on the face of it I see no reason to doubt them. The review is chiefly concerned with format issues:

  • General point: be consistent about including publisher locations in book sources
  • No publisher is given for the "International Bureau..." source. I presume that this is a US government publication, since it's printed by the Government Printing Office.
  • News: the link in the El Nacional source is returning a 404 error
  • Videos: Güerere source: the "translation" in the square brackets doesn't seem to be a translation! Also, one video has a retrieval date, the other not; one has an "event occurs" indicator, the other not.
  • Web sources: One has a translation, the other not.

Brianboulton (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • When I have a few minutes, I will go over and improve the consistency of the sources, thanks for the specific points! Kingsif (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Brianboulton: These have been addressed (yay) except for some of the Videos notes. The Güerere translation is accurate, based on not translating the title of the film and the only other text being '21st century' even if it looks odd, and it doesn't have an event occurs time because the info it is sourcing is contained in the narration that lasts the entire video and the accompanying video description, too. Kingsif (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review #2 from a Spanish speaker[edit]

  • Vice Versa doesn't list their editors or state their editorial policy. However, the author would qualify under WP:SPS, so it's fine.
  • Other Spanish language media is OK with the caveats in Brian's review.
  • Given that Sultana del Lago is a print-on-demand outfit, what makes Semprún et al 2018 an RS?
  • Semprún is a professor of Zulian history and a member of the Academy of the history of Zulia state, and everything in his various encyclopedias of the area are sourced via bibliography in the book. Most of these sources, though, are physical-only in archives, so I cannot access to cite them directly. Kingsif (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine; can you link a page that gives information on Semprún so I can confirm it? Thanks. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 22:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • S.A. de C.V —try not to use abbreviations like this, I have no idea what it stands for.
  • Resolved this; the book listing had that, but I went on worldcat to see what it meant and have updated. Kingsif (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fiamh: I have given responses above and edited the sources accordingly; in addition, the contributor at Vice Versa is Arturo Serrano, a film history professor and researcher from Venezuela. Kingsif (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • I would recommend using ALT text for the infobox image.
  • Apologies if this is incredibly obviously, but what does this part "though the technology of the screening may have been lacking" from the lead mean?
  • I am uncertain about this part from the lead: "Although the subject suggests an early horror film". When I first read it, it seemed like the film itself was pushing this horror angle, but after reading the article, it seems like a scholar (Robert Gómez) had interpreted the film in this manner. I am wondering if there is a way to clarify that in the lead?
  • I would recommend moving the Lumière wikilink to this part "Jesús Ricardo Azuaga García called the film stylistically similar to Lumière films (possibly emulating them)" since that is where they are mentioned for the first time in the body of the article.
  • I would move the Maracaibo wikilink to this sentence "As suggested by its title, the film depicts a "celebrated" surgeon pulling a patient's teeth at the Hotel Europa in Maracaibo." as that is where it is mentioned for the first time in the body of the article. The city is also linked twice in the body of the article when it should only be done once.
  • Since dental extraction is wikilinked in the lead, I would do the same in the body of the article for consistency. Same for Hotel Europa, Baralt Theatre, and Venezuelan film.

Great work with the article. I hope my comments are helpful. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 04:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Aoba47: Wonderful - taken suggestions, including clarifying both parts in the lead, do they read better now? Kingsif (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the message. I am still uncertain about this part: "though the technology used for the screening may have been insufficient". If it is referencing this line from the body of the article, "The reviewer noted that the projection speed of the films was initially irregular and the theatre lighting was too bright for films.", then I would recommend breaking it up into its own sentence and rewording it to be a little more specific/exact. Other than that, everything else looks good, and once this part is addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, yes, I really want this to be as clear as possible so thanks for picking it up! I've changed it to its own sentence, For this screening, a review notes that the technology used may have been insufficient for the purpose of showing films. What do you think? Kingsif (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is better, but I am still uncertain. The review was pretty exact with his statement so "may have been" does not seem right for this context. How about A reviewer criticized the screening for its inappropriate projection speed and theatre lighting.? Aoba47 (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added that, it suffices well, thanks. Kingsif (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your patience with the review. I support this for promotion. If you have the time and interest, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC. Either way, best of luck with the nomination, and have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SandyGeorgia[edit]

I looked in after Brian's source review, and found the citations so inconsistent that it was too time consuming to try to verify content, check reliability, or do a paraphrasing check; the citations seem to be cleaned up now, but I have still done none of that (very necessary work for a first time nominator). I started a review, fixed a few minor MOS issues, and typed up a list of prose concerns, which I lost to a server error. I don't know if I will find time to re-do it, but I don't want to leave the impression to Ian or Laser that those minor MOS adjustments were all I had. For now, a small but fixable issue is that the article interchangeably uses spaced WP:ENDASHes and unspaced WP:EMDASHes-- please pick one for consistency. There are also double quotes in several citations; perhaps use a single quote mark inside the double quote inserted by the cite template. (Example: López, Ana M. (2003). ""Train of Shadows": Early Cinema and Modernity in Latin America".)

I will try to come back to re-type my prose examples, but no promises because of holiday travel. My main concern is that too much of the article and lead focus on commentary about other films, it isn't always clear whether critique was of this film or the other films, the lead spends too much time on the other films, while there is content about this film that could be included; also there is a statement attributed to a university student thesis about "some" considering it to be Latin America's first film, but that thesis (a marginal source) gives no idea even of who these "some" people are, so it seems undue to mention it (are there other named reviewers who claim it to be the first film, in fact, it is unclear attribution on it being the first Venezuelan film), and there are some grammatical issues or awkward constructs. Perhaps someone else will find the time to revisit all of this before I do. Very nice start, Kingif; so sorry the internet did not cooperate with my review. Long story short: citations are better now, but prose needs work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Thank you! I will try to clean the dashes and quote marks soon, and I await your further comments when the internet becomes more kind. I can also try to cut down on reference to other films where gratuitous; some of this was added in response to previous prose suggestions, so I may try to strike a balance. Your input is greatly appreciated! Kingsif (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: A question on the dash issue: m-dashes are used throughout for page numbers and in an instance where it is separating a sentence clause; n-dashes are used throughout for terms connected by a dash ('black-and-white', 'B-movie'); is this standard/correct? Kingsif (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is OK to give context vis-a-vis the other films in the body of the article, but doublecheck that you specify which criticism applies specifically to this film, and please try to work more of this film into the lead. Not all of the other film stuff is needed for the lead.

I think you have the dashes a bit mixed up :) WP:ENDASHes (not em) are used on date ranges. But in the body of the article, you have a mix within text, e.g.:

  • unspaced WP:EMDASH here: … saying that whilst it fit the mold of the actualité—a short film demonstrating actual events—audiences were quickly numbed
but
  • spaced WP:ENDASH here: … there may be a rich trove of hidden independent films – such as the works of Edgar J. Anzola – which have been missing for decades …
Either works, but pick one :) Some people's eyes have a hard time seeing them, so you may not know that you are using both. Also, you may be confused on the terminology … hyphens are used for black-and-white. They are neither endashes nor emdashes. The endash and emdash are the first things in the bar just below the edit screen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It appears I was mixing them up, that's been a very useful lesson :) Kingsif (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Since I haven't replied for a while, I thought I'd update you - I believe I've fixes the dash problem (a find and replace function helps there!) and the quotes in refs problem. Still working on the prose. Thanks again. Kingsif (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: This is where I ask for more attention again, if you're free; I've gone through and tweaked some parts to focus more on this film, but I think that the critical section would need a lot more care in this regard, are there any specifics you have here or should I just try to rewrite? Kingsif (talk) 13:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite busy for a few days. If I don’t respond by early next week, pls post on my talk to remind me. I give up trying to keep up with that dumb pingie thingie. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am so sorry for the lengthy delay, Kingsif. Beginning anew:
  • Why are the literature sources not alphabetical?
  • I cannot find any Wikipedia guideline addressing this, so you or the coords could ignore this comment, but your short-form citation style strikes me as odd. When there is an author, your short form uses the author. But when there is no author, you use the publisher rather than the name of the article. When the reader looks at the sources list, the first thing that appears is the name of the article, and I believe it is typical in these cases to use the article title for the short form citation. Also, what happens in articles where you have more than one article from that publisher (e.g., El Nacional, which was once one of the two main newspapers in Venezuela); using the article name instead of the publisher makes for easier short-form citations.
  • Thanks for fixing the lead to now be more focused on this film, rather than others. I see you've also fixed dashes and hyphens.
  • WP:ENGVAR, Venezuela uses American English: Venezuelan government to capitalise ... etc ...
    • I think that was the only example, fixed and added Am Eng at the top. Kingsif (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Notes" are dense reading because of the translations. If you were to put them side-by-side, Spanish-English, in a table format, they might be more digestible.
    • Yes, looking into this. They were split into paragraphs before a peer review said that was against MOS. Kingsif (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dictionary links to words like "celebrated" are not needed. If you feel the word is not understood in common English, then it might be rephrased, but an FA shouldn't send the reader looking for basic definitions.
    • I didn't add that, and no reason was given, but I assumed it was because the adjectival form is being used, which might have confused someone? Removed, though. Kingsif (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " ... and cited only three examples". The three examples might not be essential for this article, but it would be considerate to include their names in the footnote just in case the reader is interested.
    • I've added a simple note with these. I could also possibly link La Misa... to the Venezuelan cinema in the 1890s page, where some detail of it is given, but would like to ask if it's appropriate to link to such a page (i.e. broader topic than the linking text) for FA? Kingsif (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "produced reconstructed versions of Un celebre especialista sacando muelas en el gran Hotel Europa (English: A celebrated specialist pulling teeth at the grand Hotel Europa) and Muchachos bañándose en la laguna de Maracaibo (English: Kids bathing in the lagoon of Maracaibo)" ... the full names and English translations are already given in the lead. (And why the colloquial "kids" instead of children?)
    • Someone mentioned repeating the names and translations for the first body instance... I use "kids" because I feel it's a more accurate translation of muchachos (more 'young people' than 'children'), no? But I'm open main to change to 'children', I have nothing against the word! Any recommendation on the repeats - I know that it's typical to repeat wikilinks from the lead to main body, but not sure on full names? Kingsif (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The association collected frames ... " Association refers to a proper noun, should be uppercase.
    • I've done this, but similarly have a question on this: in instances like this, where the word ("association") is acting as a pronoun (instead of "It collected frames...") or a common noun (i.e. "The association, called the Zulian Association..."), but is the same as part of the proper noun, always mean it is treated as a proper noun? Kingsif (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Emiliano Faría directed the effort, with Abdel Güerere writing and producing." Change in tense, and "the effort" does not refer to the film, rather the restoral. Perhaps, to maintain the same tense in the sentence and make the referent more clear, Abdel Güerere wrote and produced the restoration, which was directed by Emiliano Faría".
    • How does one get credit for writing a reconstruction of a previous film? What did this fellow do?
      • Changed the phrasing, not sure on credit for writing - my guess is there were blanks and he filled them in? The article on it suggests that the restoration was not a complete one. I could actually perhaps expand on this - other people are credited with e.g. graphics. Kingsif (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Separately, in 1991, an image of "the pulling of the tooth" and reference to the film were included on disc 3 of a DVD history of Venezuelan cinema, possibly with other images from the film." It is unclear why this is tacked on to this paragraph (Content), and the construct is awkward; why the quotes? I suggest trying something similar to this (but still not sure why this is mentioned in this para-- is this not part of Legacy?):
    • A 1991 DVD history of Venezuelan cinema referred to the film; the DVD included an image of the extraction, and possibly used other images from the film.
      • Move the "Third disc" to the footnote, and why "possibly"? Tell the reader why there is doubt.
        • To answer the queries, it was tacked onto the information about the restoration (being another modern use of images from the film) and gulot stuck with it. "The pulling of the tooth" is in quotes because that is how it is described in the source. The 'possibly' is because the source mentions an image of Hotel Europa, but doesn't specify if it's from the film or not. Kingsif (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have rewritten per suggestion, but not moved for want of a more appropriate place. Tell me if the phrasing is awkward re. the images; I want to get across there is only one image of each subject, but worry it may sound unnatural. Kingsif (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The specific dentist featured in the film is unknown. See User:Tony1's user page for redundancy reducing exercises, check throughout. Why not, "The identity of the film's dentist is not known."
  • The Diccionario General de Zulia identifies Vicente Toledo as the only well-known late-19th-century dentist in Venezuela.[7]
    • Lots of hyphens there ... how about something like "the only well-known Venezuelan dentist in the late 19th century"?
      • Have written something similar a bit more concise, tell me if you like it? Kingsif (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fraternidad Odontológica del Zulia (English: Zulian Orthodontological Organization) ... odontologia is dentisty ... why not just say that? Also, Zulia is used throughout the article, without ever telling the reader that Maracaibo is in the state of Zulia.
    • ... will admit to a brain fart on the Dentistry, I was trying to think of a word ending in '-ological'. Added mention of Zulia in lead. Kingsif (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Hotel Europa, of which the interior and exterior are showcased in the film, was sold and remodeled as the Hotel Zulia in 1913, then the Hotel América in the 1930s, before being demolished in 1956 to be replaced by the Maracaibo Municipal Council building.
    • ACK! The sentence is a run-on, and the grammar is awkward. I could try to fix it, but at this point, it may be best to stop and suggest that a good deal of prose work is still needed here.
  • Less than six months after the first Vitascope was brought to Venezuela, national Venezuelan film became public ... became public? Owned by the government? Went public"? No idea what this means.
    • Was changed to this back at peer review. Original wording had been along the lines of "...brought to Venezuela, the Venezuela film industry began...", which I'll admit wasn't great, but definitely makes more sense. I think peer review argued that the industry couldn't logical only take off when films were screened, and changed it. Any suggestions warmly accepted here! Kingsif (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grammatical problem: "reports suggest the public reception was somewhat intrigued at the moving images, but indifferent to the films themselves"
As I continue reading, I find a lot more of same. The flow in production and director needa a lot of work. There is no explanation for why pro-Maduro publications would trump up the claims. So, Kingsif, unfortunately at this point, my recommendation to Laser brain is that the previous Supports were premature, did not engage the criteria, and the fastest route now to eventual promotion is to withdraw this FAC and rework the article off-FAC, after gaining additional eyes and feedback. My suggestion is to email User:Steve. He is, IMO, Wikipedia's finest film editor and wrote the Venezuelan FA The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (film). He is not around a lot these days, but if you email him and tell him "Sandy sent you", he might be willing to peek in. You've done a great amount of work here, but a bit more experience and polish is needed to bring this over the line. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SandyGeorgia. You have done a lot of work here, but as I go through I find a lot of stuff which is not quite there, and which is difficult to make an actionable recommendation on without either virtually telling you what to replace it with, or being so vague as not to be helpful. You have certainly been more than willing to engage with suggestions for improvements, but I think that the article needs some FAC experience, rather than your quite evident enthusiasm. I don't wish to pre-judge, but at the moment I consider it likely that you and I will both put more work in and I will oppose anyway. If you could gain the multiplier to your enthusiasm of someone with experience of taking film articles through FAC, I believe that this article could be improved to meet the criteria. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SandyGeorgia and Gog the Mild: Thank you Sandy for the extensive comments! Thanks both of you for looking into this – if you feel this would take more work than can be achieved in this FAC (or by myself alone; it seems hard to please the full criteria!) I will happily withdraw. Any more advice would be wonderful, but your comments seem thorough. The experience of the FAC so far has given me lots of thought when writing articles, and hopefully I'll be hitting the nail on the proverbial head soon, glad to have your input! If I may ask: how would I go about creating a table in the footnotes (for translations) without it looking awful inside the scroll-over box? Sandy, are you suggesting split into columns? Kingsif (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you can force it to two columns, so that they end up side-by-side, that would work too. I guess the scroll would be messed up by a table, not sure, I can experiment. That is more of a suggestion than an FA requirement, though ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Revert this if you don't like it, but I put the English version first (to preference English for the reader on en.wiki), and put the original Spanish on a separate line. It hovers fine. I changed one instance of "kids" to "children" (muchachos); we should avoid colloquial language on Wikipedia, unless some source specifically says to translate it that way. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @SandyGeorgia: I like it! I'm also looking at the redundancy and trying to edit throughout to be concise. I have no idea if this will make it worse, but let's hope for better prose at the end of the day! Kingsif (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hooray! (I am more concerned, though, that the "Production and director" section does not flow well, and may need a complete reorganization. That kind of work is sometimes done best after taking a break from the article.) Keep reading and reviewing at FAC-- that is the best way to improve your FAcwriting skills. And go to User:Tony1 and go through everything on his page. Saludos, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes[edit]

@Kingsif: This has been lingering for a while without attention or the necessary support for promotion. I've added it to the Urgents list but it will need to be archived within the next week if it doesn't receive some more review. --Laser brain (talk) 12:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, man :) Kingsif (talk) 13:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: For your benefit, I'd like to withdraw this per the advice of experienced reviewers and the view that it will improve more out of FAC before meeting WIAFA fully. Thanks for getting it more reviewers :) Kingsif (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Gog the Mild[edit]

I have done a little copy editing which you will want to check.

  • "A reviewer criticized the screening for its inappropriate projection speed and theatre lighting." Seems inappropriately placed. Can I suggest moving it to the very end of the lead, or, possibly, the start of the second paragraph, and adding 'contemporary'.
  • "One of several dentists may have been featured in the film." seems a little ambiguous/clumsy. Perhaps 'The specific dentist featured in the film is unknown'?
  • "Fraternidad Odontológica del Zulia" Add a bracketed translation?
  • "still": link to Film frame.
  • "reconstructed versions of Un celebre especialista... and Muchachos bañándose..." The titles should be in full at first mention in the main article, with bracketed translations.
  • Either link "short" to Short film or - much better IMO - change "shorts" to 'short films' - in order that non-aficionados can understand.
  • Similarly link "screened", or change to 'shown' or similar.
  • "Peter Rist" Could this person be introduced to the readers?
  • "these films were projected at the Baralt Theatre by Gabriel Veyre" Is a reader to understand that Gabriel Veyre was a film projectionist?
  • "The films were screened at the Teatro Baralt in Maracaibo"; "these films were projected at the Baralt Theatre". Why are we told this twice? And why is the second mention in the midst of the description of the bill?

I am going to pause here. I started this review intending to do my bit to heave the article over the line. I was surprised, and disappointed, in light of the number of eyes which had already looked at it, to discover how much still needs to be done. I am not convinced that, IMO, it can meet the FA criteria without being withdrawn for further work. However, given the advanced state of the FAC I can understand the nominator being reluctant. So I suggest that my comments above are addressed and the rest of the article reviewed for any similar issues before pinging me to continue. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I have made the above edits, and in a similar vein have made more clarifying edits, and introduced more wikilinks and another wiktionary link. Kingsif (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I didn't read ahead, Kingsif;, I see you are trying to please many reviewers, but yes, please see Tony1's redundancy reducing exercises on:
  • The specific dentist featured in the film is unknown --> The identity of the dentist is not known. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kingsif. I am almost certainly going to oppose. You are doing great work, but while it is fine to "polish" an article at FAC - and "polishing" is a fuzzy-edged concept - you are substantially rewriting the article during the process. To the extent that by the time you will have finished taking on board all of the comments made so far the article will be a different one from that supported by the editors above. I think that, as SandyGeorgia commented, you need to withdraw it, work through all of the feedback you have received so far, seek advice from an editor with experience of navigating similar articles through FAC, and then bring it back. Sorry to be negative; IMO there is a FAC in there struggling to get out, but it isn't currently ready. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: No need to apologize, I think this is a very positive comment; I appreciate the honest feedback and the encouragement! Now that you say it, I agree that the edits are substantial enough to have changed the article significantly, as well as having considered that withdrawing will be a benefit to hopefully get the experienced advice discussed. I may leave this up a few more days to see if I get a response to my last comments for Yo and Sandy, but will probably take this down soon to work more without the ...pressure?... of an ongoing FAC. Kingsif (talk) 13:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If, immediately prior to bringing it back, you would like a copy edit and/or an opinion on its readiness - with the understanding that this would be one editor's view which would not necessarily shared by FAC reviewers - feel free to ping me. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Gog, I'll keep you in mind! Kingsif (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kingsif, I have been following, but to explain why I haven't responded and to further elaborate on Gog's points ... this FAC is an example of what we can't do well at FAC, and can do better off-FAC.

By the way, Yomangani is fluent in Spanish and historically one of Wikipedia's finest FA writers: he can be of as much help to you as I indicated that Steve can.

In trying to satisfy Yo, Gog and me, some areas of the article are now moving in the wrong direction. (You have effected my suggestion on moving things to footnotes in a less-than-optimal way, is one small example.) To try to go back and review, strike and continue is cumbersome and time-consuming on FAC when so much is changing at once, and much more easily done by directly editing the article. Most reviewers are hesitant to directly edit too much during FAC, as they don't want to risk negatively impacting the nominator. If I have to do this at FAC, my preference is to start over from the top, since it's a new article now.

In terms of what is on the page that you can still address, my very first point is a reminder to alphabeticize the sources.

You have now three people saying that we cannot support this article, even if we have not lodged formal opposes. I have separately pointed out that neither John M Wolfson nor Aoba47 provided reviews that sufficiently engaged WP:WIAFA-- as demonstrated by three subsequent reviewers who found numerous issues. I hope those two reviewers will take greater care in the future, as this is a frustrating situation to put a new FAC nominator in, and equally frustrating for the coordinators as they evaluate whether a page should be archived or promoted. I don't want to go back point-by-point at this juncture, because in some cases, the four of us (you, me, Gog and Yo) have gotten in each other's way a bit. We are not polishing: we are rewritiing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Yes, you're certainly right. I'll withdraw, continue editing, and hopefully receive more input before considering FAC again. As always, I appreciate your view :) Kingsif (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is a pleasure, always, to see a new FAC nominator learning how to write top content (although frustrating that your nomination received two premature supports). I am unsure if the coords read through to promote/archive every day, but because of the two-week required delay to re-nominate, you may want to bold the withdraw above so that we can get to work off-FAC the soonest. As you know, my participation on Wikipedia has been sporadic of late, but I am always around more during US winter months and I hate those damn pingie things ... please know to always post to my talk page if I fail to respond quickly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yo[edit]

I'm not going to support or oppose as I don't support it as is and wouldn't be around to strike my oppose and I just don't get involved in that sort of nonsense anyway, but I do have some comments:

  • " is the first Venezuelan film" - "was"? As it is lost/destroyed.
  • "as the second in a film block" Playbill says it was first, or is there some more reliable alternative source that says it was second?
    • The clipping? It says it's second... Kingsif (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Second after the Champs Elysees - the phrasing in the lead implies it was second after Muchachos unless you read carefully (which nobody ever does). Yomanganitalk 01:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...and much like other contemporary films". Later on you say it isn't: "Azuaga García notes that this was to be unusual for early Venezuelan film, and cites only three examples", "López notes that the prevailing scholarly narrative that many Latin American films had science-related themes is inaccurate; she cites four films related to science"
    • Though that part is referring to the practice of actuality films (rather than Lumiere-like or science-themed), I agree that it's excessive and not exactly sourceable - it came from GOCE writing out what actuality films are, and then recommendations to rephrase; not the first of these compromises trying to please everyone that has resulted in mangled text, so thanks for pointing it out to me. Kingsif (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "restoring and colorizing the images to recreate the approximate look of the films". Colorizing? Or tinting? I doubt they were in colour, even that horrible colorized colour.
    • Adding wikilink; source says 'in color'. Kingsif (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The films were probably hand painted in the originals. I'd change it to "adding color" (or "colour" if you want) and link to Film_colorization#Partial_colorization. "Colorizing" has undertones of the hideous Ted Turner efforts of the 1980s. Yomanganitalk 01:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Azuaga García notes that this was to be unusual for early Venezuelan film, and cites only three examples" I added the "early" (being all weaselly like what I am) but it really needs some frame of reference. presumably there have been more than three films of this type to date.
    • Thanks for that :) Re. the context, actualités died pretty quickly; narrative film took over entirely as early as 1911 (likely later in Venezuela given the whole sequence of dictatorships). However, Lumiere-inspired films (what Azuaga García is speaking about here) would be even less in the Americas, which wanted to distance themselves from European practices (to establish themselves as the best) right from the start of the Edison company. Kingsif (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Muchachos bañándose en la laguna de Maracaibo needs some explanation. How do we know that this isn't the first Venezuelan film?
    • With little known about the production, we just have the assertion of the Venezuelan government, film industry, and independent scholars that Un celebre..." was first (of course, some of those are more reliable than others); then the fact it was shown earlier is in effect an earlier premiere (even if by 10 minutes), which is how we count film order nowadays, no? Kingsif (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are going to mention L'Arrivée d'un train en gare de La Ciotat, then a little aside on it won't go amiss. Why is that important?
    • Little is said about that film in reference to this screening; it's just quite a famous film, so a mention of the name felt more appropriate than excluding it. Kingsif (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you don't give it least an adjective to let the reader know why it is worth mentioning then it looks like it isn't worth mentioning. "Famous", "celebrated", "innovative". Anything like that will do. Yomanganitalk 01:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Production and director. This is a bit muddled. It appears no agreement on who made it, so that should be set out first rather than launching with the historic attribution.
    • I will try to rewrite this somewhat. I know this section needs work! Thanks for the idea to put a short statement at the start Kingsif (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "López writes that ... gave a contemporary audience justification for watching a film when they were otherwise considered spectacles." Perhaps it gave the intellectually snobbish an excuse but generally people don't need an excuse to enjoy spectacles.
    • Well, yep, I can't disagree on the assessment. Spectacle is the film studies term, referring to the idea of early cinema as spectacle - i.e. something pointless that's just innovative, like a magic show - not the modern sense. I couldn't find it in Wiktionary but might add it. Despite this, though, the sources like López get their contemporary info largely from newspapers, many of which were snobbish. Kingsif (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she cites four films related to science, only one of which was produced after 1900. " I don't see the point you are trying to convey here. I think you are saying that after the Paris Expo there was no incentive to produce science-based films but the argument doesn't flow and "only one of which was produced after 1900" suggests there has never been another science related film since.
    • Perhaps another 'early' could be inserted here! I will try to re-write this, I'm grateful you brought it up, because now I re-read it, I'm not sure quite what I was trying to convey, either. Kingsif (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Michelle Leigh Farrell discusses 20th-century Venezuelan cinema..." Where? Or when? Or where and when?
    • In her 2011 paper! (Added) - question about if clarifying statements like this should always be used? Kingsif (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "despite its claim". Who or what is "it" here? "Venezuelan cinema" isn't capable of making a claim.
    • Re-worded; it now doesn't mention this film by name, but I think the idea is still conveyed. Kingsif (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Martínez adds that...to create slapstick comedy" This whole sentence needs reworking - two films become one factor, the phrasing around the second factor is awkward and the whole concept is not explained.
    • Changed this a bit - clarified it's the two films' form, and put the second part in a refnote, also rewriting that. Kingsif (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the wictionary link to "outfit"? It's not unusual.
    • I recently added it because it's the verb, but looks identical to the much more common noun, and I didn't want confusion. If you think it's common enough to not include, that's great, I'll ditch it. Kingsif (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yomanganitalk 23:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Yomangani: Thank you! Made some edits, responded to each comment, thanks for the little edit :) You said you won't be around, but any more comments will be appreciated. Kingsif (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Yomangani and SandyGeorgia: You've both mentioned the Production and director section as ... not great. I have rewritten and restructured it over at my sandbox if you are interested in giving feedback on that! (@Yomangani, I've also made your other suggested edits now, thanks!) Kingsif (talk) 01:44, 17 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Un_célebre_especialista_sacando_muelas_en_el_gran_Hotel_Europa/archive2&oldid=931754380"