Talk:The Westerner and the Earl

The Westerner and the Earl was nominated as a Media and drama good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (October 24, 2015). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Film: Silent / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Silent films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Westerner and the Earl/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 19:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will complete this soon JAGUAR 19:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments[edit]

The leads needs to be expanded to summarise the article
"The earl hires a Wild West show's Indian actors" - delete "a"

Incorrect - it is "a Wild West" show not a singular entity. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The film was billed as a comedy by Thanhouser, but reviewers all states that the plot was that of a comedy" - reviewers all state

Fixed. Also it was a drama by Thanhouser, reviewers found it a comedy. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend splitting plot and production into two sections
"The only unhappy person was the earl" - sounds a bit informal

Done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On hold[edit]

I'm not too concerned about length for these articles, as it's very understandable that information is scarce for a 104 year old lost film. The major concern here is that there are only three references! I can't promote an article with three sources, so addition of more sources would be great. Are there any more secondary sources that were used for previous Thanhouser articles suitable for this one? For an article this size, a bare minimum of five sources would suffice. I'll have to leave this on hold until more content/sources are added. Other than that, I recognise it's a short review. JAGUAR 15:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar: Just a note Bowers contains several references itself, as it is a compendium source which means I do not need to cite works that are offline. Bower's listing by itself was 5 references. Though I can probably try and dig up some newspaper ones in a bit - just need to hold it for a bit longer. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar and ChrisGualtieri:GA Hold status for one month — any updates on status here? — Cirt (talk) 17:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just waiting for Chris to come up with a few more secondary sources - after that it should be good to go. JAGUAR 13:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar and ChrisGualtieri:GA Hold status for one more week since above status check -- any new updates? — Cirt (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not GA at this time[edit]

Unfortunately, it looks like ChrisGualtieri hasn't edited Wikipedia in about one month.

Closing this one as not GA at this time.

Can always be renominated later and ChrisGualtieri could request Jaguar to do an expedited review at that point in time -- based upon this review. Or ask the same of a different GA Reviewer.

Good luck,

— Cirt (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]