Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Sinking of the Lusitania/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 10:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

The Sinking of the Lusitania[edit]

The Sinking of the Lusitania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Curly Turkey (gobble) 09:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because this is the last of the Winsor McCay film articles I've been working on, in the hope of having them all promoted as FAs before February 2014, the 100th anniversary of Gertie the Dinosaur. This one is the film where things seemed to go inexplicably wrong—the earlier films were each more poular than the last. After 22 months of work on this one, the public was indifferent, as they were to McCay's later films. Pressure from William Randolph Hearst brought an end to these ventures, and that was it for the most important pre-Disney animator. Curly Turkey (gobble) 09:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Review by Quadell[edit]

Image review: All images are legitimately in the public domain, and all required information is present.

Spot checks: I checked the references 5, 8, 16, 30, 32, 33, 40. In every case I found the statement fully backed by the source, and I found no close paraphrasing issues (not even with peculiar phrasing like "vast voids which engorge themselves on the drowning bodies"). But shouldn't ref 5 refer to page 17, rather than 22?

When I searched through Google Books, I found the support for "His birth records are not extant" on page 17. I couldn't see page 22. It could be that page 22 is a better source; I can't tell. If you could check when you get a chance, I'd appreciate it. – Quadell (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion, the lead would flow better if the "A work of propaganda" clause were instead prepended to the "It is a recreation of the never-photographed 1915 sinking of the RMS Lusitania" sentence.
  • I don't think you meant "a German a U-boat".
  • When a brief prepositional phrase begins a sentence (e.g. "In 1915"), it is an editorial choice whether to use a comma or not. But that choice should be reasonably consistent. In the 2nd paragraph of the lead, one sentence uses a comma after "In 1916", while a different sentence omits a comma after "In 1915". Most sentences in the article use a comma here, but "After 1921" in the "Reception and legacy" section does not.
    • Done. I don't have a strong preference for one style or the other, so I went with the majority. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "successes in animation" should be followed by a colon. Otherwise it sounds like this film followed his successes, and these three films as well (implying they were not successes).
  • The lead uses three semicolons; that's a lot. (Kurt Vonnegut would not approve.) Consider the first sentences of paragraph 3 of the "Background" section, and compare them to the first sentence of paragraph 2 of the lead, and I think you'll see it works fine without a semi-colon.
    • I've always preferred John Barth's writing to Vonnegut's; Barth loves his semicolon-twinned sentences. Not that I would claim to have mastered them, and I generally don't revert when someone adds or removes them from the articles on my watchlist. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have not read Barth, but he sounds fascinating! I did remove one semicolon. – Quadell (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of which, was in 1,200 or 1,198? I don't remember...
  • The first sentence of "Synopsis" needs rewording. One duplication is "...opens with a live-action prologue, with intertitles". Another is "that boasts of McCay... and boasts of 25,000 drawings". Also, it's not clear if the last "boasts" is a noun (if so, how does it fit in the sentence?) or a verb (if so, what is the subject?)
  • The lifespan format of "(c. 1867–71 – 1934)" is confusing. I see that most McCay-related articles use the same multiple-en-dash format, though the FA How a Mosquito Operates does not. I don't like it at all, personally.
    • I didn't choose it because it was pretty! I asked how to handle this at WikiProject Biography and got no response. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh it's terrible. It's not strictly against the MoS, and I won't hold up the nomination on this point, but I'd be very grateful if someone with more MoS-knowledge than me could provide a better solution at some point. – Quadell (talk)
  • The phrase "Hearst editor Arthur Brisbane" sounds odd, since Brisbane didn't edit Hearst.
  • The term "registration pegs" is not in common use, and it isn't explained when it is first mentioned. It's explained (kind of) further down, although I don't think the link to Printing registration is useful. (That article is about color printing.)
  • The phrase "from artist neighbor John Fitzsimmons" sounds odd. Would this work? "...from his neighbor, artist John Fitzsimmons, and from Cincinnati cartoonist..."
    • With that, we run into ambiguity over whether it was two or three people who helped. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah yes, serial comma ambiguity, my old friend. I added a "from", which I think makes it clearer (although if anyone has a better wording suggestion, go for it). – Quadell (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "McCay did newspaper illustrations" sounds odd. Do people "do" illustrations?
    • I'm pretty sure they do; nevertheless, I've changed it to "provided". Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider "This saved great amounts of effort in contrast to McCay's earlier efforts..." To avoid duplication, I think "earlier methods" would work better.
  • Any reason you spell "première" the French way?
    • It's the way I've always spelt it; apparently it's also acceptable American spelling. I wouldn't make a fuss if someone went and changed it, though. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion, the fact about Cristiani's lost work would go best in the "Notes" section.
  • Duplication: In the "Reception and legacy" section, you say the film is "often called the longest animated film of its time", and then go on to say it was noted "as the longest animated film to date".
  • It's not clear what you mean by "Unexecuted animation projects". Were they ideas that never got started? Or films that never got released?
    • They were projects that for one reason or another never got to the animation stage, as far as is known. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, okay. I've boldly reworded, not as part of a FA requirement, but just because I thought I could word it better. Feel free to revert. – Quadell (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list in the "See also" section does not seem particularly relevant to me.

The article is thorough, interesting, well organized, and appropriately sourced. The main problems involve copy-editing concerns. – Quadell (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are great. I'll look them over more thoroughly later this weekend. Meanwhile, don't forget about the sourcing question I had in "spotchecks". – Quadell (talk) 12:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I believe this passes all our FA criteria. I'd be more comfortable if source 5 were doublechecked, but the nominator has high integrity when it comes to sources, and I won't hold up supporting on that point. – Quadell (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks! I can't access the Google Books copy (I'm in Japan, and many of the books on Google Books are blocked here). In my copy, there is no text on page 17, only a couple of photos. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google Books definitely has the bit about his birth records' destruction on page 17, not 22. But I suspect Google may have digitized the original edition, not the revised edition Curly Turkey is working from. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk)

  • A few comments: - Dank (push to talk)
  • "McCay himself adopted the cel method beginning with The Sinking of the Lusitania.", "It was the first film in which he drew on sheets of clear cellulose acetate": repetition
  • "American Earl Hurd's cel technology", "Earl Hurd had patented cel technology": repetition
  • "it saved work by allowing dynamic drawings to be drawn on one or more layers, which could be laid over a static background layer, relieving animators of the tedium of retracing static images onto drawing after drawing. The cels were an added expense, but the technique allowed for a static background to be placed behind the cels, which reduced the amount of drawing necessary. This saved great amounts of effort in contrast to McCay's earlier methods, in which the backgrounds had to be painstakingly retraced onto each of thousands of drawings.": lots of repetition
    • Done. I've done some cutting, mixing, and rearranging, and I think I've blotted out all the reptitions. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was not until Disney's feature films in the 1930s that the animation industry caught up with McCay's level of technique.": "level of technique" is vague. And, depending on what this is saying, this might be a bold enough statement to require attribution.
  • "McCay was made to give up": "made to" is a little informal, and I'm not clear here: did Hearst require him to stop, or did someone else?
  • - Dank (push to talk) 15:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now Moving to neutral with most of my concerns addressed, though I'm not comfortable supporting without one final read-through. Will try to do so in the next couple of days. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Use circa for Winsor McCay once in the body of the article. It's not needed for the lead, I think. Furthermore, using "(c. 1867–71 – 1934)" is ungainly. Using c. should allow you to use just 1867.
    • I'm not really a fan of where you've placed the movie itself. It breaks of the synopsis into a couple of short, choppy segments. Can we put that at the top of or maybe even above the "synopsis" section? (if above, you can use the magic word __FORCETOC__)
    • Background section has an image sandwich.
    • Why are you quoting "came to see the possibility of making moving pictures"? Surely that can be paraphrased.
    • Redundant: "On Gertie the Dinosaur an assistant painstakingly traced and retraced the backgrounds thousands of times." -> "This saved great amounts of effort in contrast to McCay's earlier methods, in which the backgrounds had to be painstakingly retraced onto each of thousands of drawings."
    • I'm confused at your organization here. You come at the reader with some cel history, talk about time/collaborators, come back at them with "and spent his off hours drawing the film on sheets of cellulose acetate (or "cels") with white and black India ink at McCay's home." before telling them that he financed it himself. You then go back to cel technology. What's going on here? Maybe we can keep related items together?
    • Necessary? "... which took an hour to photograph." Eight weeks vs. eight seconds seems like enough of a contrast.
    • Why the accent mark in "première"?
      • Quadell asked the same question above. If someone took it out, I wouldn't revert, but I'm not inclined to remove it myself. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's an acceptable alternate spelling. – Quadell (talk) 11:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "... although there is an animated film from Britain on the same subject that may have preceded it." What name? Readers may want to look it up.
    • How is $80,000 not a commercial success? $80,000 in 1918 was a lot of money. Given that it was over several years, I can see it being relatively neutral, but it's hard to believe that it was a flop.
      • I'm not going to guess—this is what Canemaker says: "[McCay] had financed all of his films himself, mostly at a loss. Lusitania was to be no exception; it netted McCay only $80,000 after a number of years in theaters, approximately $3.20 per drawing." I don't know what the threshold for box office success was in 1918, but a film today can haul in tens of millions and still be a flop (no that the article calls it a flop, just not a commercial success). Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overall not terrible, but it needs some attention to detail IMHO. Please feel free to dispute any points I've made above—I'm not immune to sound logical reasoning. :-) Thanks and best of luck, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. I notice you've moved the {efn}s outside the {sfn}s. In a previous review, I was told the notes were supposed to be inside the citations, and have been formatting them so ever since. Is there a guideline on this somewhere? Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's just silly (no offense intended, of course)—the endnotes cover the sentences, while the extended footnotes have references for themselves. To reverse them makes it look like the endnotes are references for the footnotes too. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • The references do reference (identify the sources for) the notes... – Quadell (talk) 13:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Inside the footnotes, yes. But I wouldn't put footnotes after endnotes (i.e. [a][1] is bad) because it looks like the endnote ([1]) covers the footnote ([a]) as well. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ah! I see what you mean. Yes, I agree. – Quadell (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • I used to place them outside, basically following ed's logic, until I was told they should be inside. I don't feel strongly one way or the other, but it'd hate to see them shifted back and forth by editors with different preferences, so it would be nice if there were a guideline. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

  • Comment: I've got very little to complain about here; you do great work with these McCay articles. But I do see a possible contradiction. This article says "McCay made a further five more films, three of which did not see commercial release." But Winsor McCay lists Bug Vaudeville, The Pet, The Flying House, The Centaurs, Gertie on Tour, Flip's Circus, and Performing Animals. Is this a difference in what counts as a "film"? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. That was sloppy of me. And to think I once excelled in math. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got a few more, so giving myself a section. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead and caption both refer to the submarine as a U-boat specifically. Pipe a link in synopsis from German submarine?
  • In Production history, you refer to Fitzsimmons by his last name only before you introduce him as an artist and McCay's neighbor.
  • You probably don't need to call him John the second time now, though. /nitpick. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does Fitzsimmons warrant a redlink? A quick pass over the sources leaves me undecided.
    • I have no idea what he's done apart from the films with McCay—the only places I've seen his name are in relation to McCay. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about Ap Adams? I'm having trouble finding much on him, in part because there's this William Apthorp Adams (who I'd assume is related), whose death date makes him a clearly different person.
    • I know less about him than Fitsimmons—I've only seen his name in the Canemaker book. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the other William Apthorp Adams might be notable, but he's not this guy. So, yeah, no redlink needed here, I don't believe. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might also be worth including that Jewel Productions' acquisition of rights to the film was believed by Motography to be the highest price paid for a one-reel film as of that date. ("Pays Big Price for One-Reeler". Motography. 20 (2): 74. 1918-07-13.)
    • Wow, thanks a lot for that! If you come across any more McCay mentions in these magazines, please let me know—I'd love to include them in the other articles, especially the Dream of the Rarebit Fiend one (I'm inthe dark as to what kind of reception they had). Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glad this was valuable. I'll see what I can find for the rest of the McCay films over the next few days. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Style opens with "Combining editorial cartooning techniques with live-action-like sequences...", and I'm confused. I know the introduction was actually live-action. Is that what's being referred to here? What was "live-action-like"?
    • It's supposed to refer to the style of animation. I think I've clarified it now. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what I think is the last thing to note: Other than that Motography source I mentioned above, the other period film magazines don't appear to say anything that's not being said by other sources already (if they even covered it at all). However, Jewel Productions did take out this pretty impressive full-page ad in The Moving Picture World. Not sure there's really anywhere in the article to mention that, much less include it, but thought you'd like to see it!
    • Wow! If it were McCay's own artwork, I'd probably try to force it into the article somehow. I'll probably still upload it to Commons. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of the comments I've made above are significant enough to warrant objecting to promotion, especially way down here at the bottom of the FAC list. I'm happy to support promotion regardless of the status of my few quibbles. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Spinningspark[edit]

  • Synopsis
  • ...floating bodies, including those of a mother and her baby.' Watching the film, the mother and baby are depicted drowning, not dead, with the mother desperately trying to hold her baby above the waves as she sinks.
    • I've changed bodies to "drowning passengers", although I'm sure there's a better wording ... Curly Turkey (gobble)
      I think you need to separate out the description of the two scenes. The long panoramic shot of the people in the water is a long shot; they may be supposed to be dead, or maybe not, it is hard to tell. The scene with the mother and baby is close in and much more intimate and they are definitely not dead, at least at first. It is a scene saying something very different to the shot of anonymous people in the water. SpinningSpark 00:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does this work? Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not really, it is still lumping them together as if it were the same scene. The first scene is panoramic, the second is not. Also, the camera does not "pan over" in either shot; I am not sure that panning is done anywhere in the film. SpinningSpark 09:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)/18:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Getting closer? Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • In my view the scene of the drowning mother and child should be treated in a separate sentence. It is the closing scene of the film and is clearly intended to make a strong emotional impact before the political message on the final intertitle. It is thus an important part of the film by itself. SpinningSpark 11:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • How is it now?
  • A mother struggles to save her baby[4] as the Lusitania vanishes from sight. Are we watching the same movie? The mother and baby scene is an underwater shot and the Lusitania isn't in it. It sunk about three scenes back. SpinningSpark 21:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The transcription of the intertitle is not quite accurate. I also think that the punctuation (!) and all caps should be preserved as this conveys some of the emotive content of the intertitle. My reading of it is "The man who fired the shot was decorated for it by the Kaiser!—AND YET THEY TELL US NOT TO HATE THE HUN." True MOS:QUOTE calls for all caps not to be preserved in quotes but I feel in this case they are part of the visual impact of the intertitle so is a valid exception. In any case, if MOS:QUOTE is to be followed all caps should be converted to bold or italics. MOS:QUOTE also pronounces against the use of wikilinks within quotes.
    • Italicized and delinked. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The text still does not exactly agree with the intertitle. Note the singular "shot" and the words "for it". I can't think of any reason why you are omitting the questionexclamation mark either. SpinningSpark 00:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background
  • I feel a brief word on why Germany was torpedoing civilian ships would be beneficial. Both for balance and to answer readers' curiosity. Is there an article that could be linked?
    • There's U-boat Campaign (World War I). I've thrown it into a "See also" section. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I was really looking for something in running text. See also is often used to link to subjects that in a fully developed article would be discussed in the article, but an FA should be fully developed. It is unbalanced to discuss American reactions and not discuss German motivations. Come to think of it, Britain is not mentioned either, not even to say it was their ship. SpinningSpark 00:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Production history
  • The amount of rendering caused the cels to buckle, which made it difficult for the camera to shoot them. I presume what is meant here is that the buckled cel is not properly aligned and/or is out of focus with respect to the rest of the cels. The camera is going to have no difficulty taking a shot of this, it will just be a lousy shot. What is the relevance of the thickness of the cels which is mentioned immediately prior to this problem. Does it make the buckling worse or better, or is it a totally unrelated issue?
    • I'm fairly certain the buckling wasn't due to the thickness per se, but to the amount of ink, pencil, and wash that was put onto it. I don't know how thicknes allows this (I've never seen these thicker cels firsthand), but I can't imagine using pencil on modern cels (imagine trying to write with pencil on an overhead sheet). Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The point is that there is a slight implication in the present text that the cel thickness has something to do with the buckling. If that is not true, or we don't know whether it is true, then the clarity of the article needs to be fixed. SpinningSpark 00:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Canemaker says the thick cels had a "tooth" to allow pencil and wash. The meaning of tooth is explained in The Animation Bible (a further snippet here [3]. SpinningSpark 01:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't find an article that gives a definition of "tooth" (I'd've thought paper would—it's hardly an obscure subject). I'm not too happy with this wording, and am wide open to alternate suggestions. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • developed a technique using a loose-leaf binder with a hole punched in the middle. Completely fail to understand how that is supposed to help. The link to the ring binder article is of no help.
    • The source isn't clear, but the impression I got was that he was using the binder as a light table—I think the hole was supposed to be quite large, but the source doesn't explicitly state that. Cel technology allows for the layering of transparent cels, so it's important to be able to see through one to the other—when photographing as well. I assume the binding kept the layered cels align. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, registration pegs were used to keep cels aligned. I have no idea what role the binder played in photography. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry to bang on about this one. I am an engineer and like to understand the technical details and am unhappy leaving this unclear. It kind of sounds like the binder formed sort of frame to hold the deformed cels flat. It would be nice to clarify this. SpinningSpark 00:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Now I have read what Canemaker has to say, that seems to be exactly the right description and "a hole punched in the middle" is a poor one. The centre of the binder is cut away leaving just an outline frame to clamp the cels. Just punching a hole, even a large one, would have left some of the drawing obscured. SpinningSpark 01:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • How does it look now? I think I've got a better mental image of it now from your interpretation that I'd had from Canemaker's. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Punched" is a poor choice of word. It evokes a specific process, which may well not have been used, and is one that is typically used for small holes. Keep them aligned is also poor, as you said youself above, alignment is the job of the registration pegs, this device is to flatten out the buckling. The essential point that is not coming across is that they ended up with a frame that held down the edges of the cels thus tending to flatten out the warping. SpinningSpark 09:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • How is this? Honestly, the more I read that paragraph in the book, the less confident I am that I understand what it means. Where it seems at first like he's describing the binder, it seems to turn out that he's describing the registration pegs?—
              "The heavily rendered Lusitania cels tended to buckle, and so Fitzsimmons suggested using a loose-leaf binder with the centre cut out to hold the drawings while filming them. "I mentioned this to Mr. Mac," said Fitsimmons, "and he agreed that the idea held great possibilities and the plan was immediately taken advantage of. Binding posts were attached to drawing boards and the sheets of celluloid were punched to snugly fit to them. Thus the annoying problem of movement or shifting of drawings while being traced was reduced to a minimum&nbsp.... [it] also facilitated the photographing of the drawings immeasurably and proved well-worth all additional expense." Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I am not happy that this is not being explained properly. It does not seem to be unknown; the information is out there, we are just not finding it. If we really do not understand this it would be better to directly quote the source rather than trying to paraphrase which would all too likely just further garble the information. Cutting out the centre of the binder could be read as cutting out the ring-binding mechanism on the spine. In which case any talk of punching holes in the binder is definitely wrong. If Canemaker's binding posts are read as being this mechanism then it all starts to make sense. It is also not clear if this is being used as well as, instead of, or as a development of, the registration peg system. SpinningSpark 18:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Of course, less than ideal, ow about something like: "The amount of rendering caused the cels to buckle, which made it difficult to keep them aligned for photographing; assistant John Fitzsimmons dealt with it using a modified loose-leaf binder.": then we would be stating what we don't know (how it was modified or how it was used). If we ever do find out, we can add it then. I'm not sure the "binding posts" have anything to do with the binder—since they were "attached to drawing tables", they sound to me like registration pegs, which had been patented before McCay started making the film. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Smith 1977 (page 24) says:
                    "Raoul Barré, who in 1913 established the first studio capable of producing animated cartoons in quantity, is credited with developing registration pegs and punch holes in the drawings to hold them in place. John Fitzimmons remembers also coming up with the idea of registration pegs and punched holes in the drawings while helping McCay make The Sinking of the Lusitania."
                    I guess it looks like McCay didn't use Barré's registration pegs after all (though it seems unlikely to me, given that Bray had tried to sue him over patent issues in 1914, and that the pegs had been around for three years already by the time McCay started Lusitania). The current wording at least doesn't contradict this. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I guess your suggestion will have to do. Regarding "attached to drawing tables" that is exactly what I am suggesting Fitzsimmons did with the mechanism. Many large ring binders have a releasable clamp to hold the pages down. That is just what they needed to stop the cels curling up, especially if they fitted two of these on opposite sides. This is something that simple registration pegs would not do as they are open at the top. The Smith quote seems to back up this interpretation, that this was McCay's version of registration pegs. I would have thought that if they had previously been in patent disputes that they might have patented this system. I couldn't find a patent, but I might just not be using the right search terms. SpinningSpark 11:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                      • McCay apparently was not interested in the idea of patenting his innovations. Canemaker quotes him saying, "Any idiot that wants to make a couple of thousand drawings for a hundred feet of film is welcome to join the club." Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has made it clear that we do not understand for sure what the technique was. I am still not happy with the text of the article on this. It currently reads using a loose-leaf binder with the center cut out to frame the cels but if my suggested interpretation above is correct then using the cut-out center of a loose-leaf binder to clamp the cels would be more accurate. We either need to find out for sure how it worked or, if we cannot do that, quote the source verbatim. SpinningSpark 23:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you think about the "modified binder" wording I proposed above? Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that's sufficiently vague. It would, of course, be better not to be vague at all. SpinningSpark 12:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • It'd be nice if decent records were kept. As it is, even the original drawings for most of the films haven't survived. Anyways, Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 900 feet of 35 mm film has 14,400 frames. Drawings != frames in cel animation. Each cel is a separate drawing and more than one cel may be created for an individual frame. 25,000 drawings does not seem like an anomaly to me, unless the sources indicate that frames are meant.
    1. It wasn't me who claimed the anomaly, but the source—and neither the endnote nor the source claim that there was actually an error.
    2. Cels allow layering to reduce the number of drawings. For instance, a single background drawing can be used for hundreds or thousands of foreground drawings. It's unlikely that 10,600 of the drawings were background drawings. In animation since McCay there are often several layers of foreground cels, but I don't see any evidence of that in the film.
    3. Lusitania is not the only film that it's been claimed McCay inflated numbers—check out endnote "o" of Gertie the Dinosaur, a film where one rice-paper drawing did equal one frame. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm satisfied with this now, but cels allow layering to reduce the number of drawings is an incorrect statement. Cels reduce the amount of drawing to be sure, but the number of drawings can only increase. SpinningSpark 09:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy
  • Though admired by his animation contemporaries, it was technically ahead of its time. The contrasting conjunction though is expected to lead to a negative contrast but it does not.
  • it was technically ahead of its time[40] and "did not revolutionize the [animation] medium". Connected with the above issue, technically ahead of its time would be expected to lead to a positive outcome but a negative one is given so the positive conjunction and seems inappropriate, a negative one such as but seems to be needed.
    Outside comment: This same wording came up before in a previous (successful) nomination. The animation was "ahead of its time" in a negative way. I'm so used to hearing this as a compliment, that I sometimes forget it's really not: McCay's animation might have been popular and remunerative ten years later, but when it was released it was not a success. I can't think of a better way to succinctly say that than to say it was "ahead of its time". If seen as a negative, it makes the contrasting conjunction issues go away. – Quadell (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    How's "; admired by his animation contemporaries, it "did not revolutionize the film cartoons of its time" as it was technically too advanced for his peers to follow."? Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Though could be replaced on that sentence, it makes sense there. @Quadell:, just because a sentence is grammatically and semantically correct does not necessarily mean that it is a good sentence. If it is likely to be misunderstood, which ahead of its time will in this context, then it is bad on the grounds of clarity. The more I think about this, the more that sentence does not seem to actually be saying anything meaningful (neither the old one or the new one). When one talks about "ahead of its time" in Quadell's negative sense one usually means an idea that it is not possible to implement succesfully because the technology for it has not yet developed. Icarus' idea of human powered flight was ahead of its time because the technology of the day was not up to it. McCay's animation on the other hand was clearly technically feasible because he actually did it. Thus "technically too advanced for his peers to follow" cannot be right (unless they were particularly technically incompetent). They could have followed him, they just did not want to. But why? SpinningSpark 18:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    1. By "replace", do you "put back in"?
    2. how about "beyond the technical abilities of his peers"? Which I do think is true—I can't think of an animator from the time who could have matched McCay merely by sheer dint of effort. We're talking every aspect here, from McCay's rendering and composition skills to his sense of movement, timing, and weight. The Brays and Fleischers simply weren't anywhere near his level in terms of basic drawing skills, and McCay's understanding went well beyond mere drawing ability. Remember, McCay was doing these cartoons in his free time (and a lot of his free time was eaten up by the vaudeville act he also did on the side), while his rivals did it nine-to-five. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "put back in", yes, that's exactly what I meant. So you seem to be saying that McCay's drawing quality was technically too advanced for his peers to follow rather than the animation method was technically too advanced. If so, can that be clarified in-article please. SpinningSpark 11:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed it to "McCay's skills were beyond what his contemporaries were able follow". Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Style

SpinningSpark 19:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC) to 18:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Layout
The Sinking of the Lusitania (1918)
  • Making the link to the film file so large is a bit ugly and there is no need to centre it. In both Firefox and IE the film pops out into a larger format when you actually play it. Is there some problem with other browsers? SpinningSpark 15:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I just wanted to emphasize the artwork—it blurred into a goop of grey when it was standard size. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • On a standard thumbnail I can see the outline of the ship and the statue of liberty quite clearly. I don't think this is really good for an FA, the file is mostly functional to kick off the movie. It's not as if you are actually discussing the artwork in that section when the artwork would have some relevance. If you just want an art gallery you could add a picture gallery at the bottom of the article. SpinningSpark 00:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd intended to have one blown-up image like that in any case—if it can be accomplished with one image rather than two, I see that as big bonus points. The smaller version is obscured by the "play" button, and you really can't clearly see anything unless you know what you're looking for—you certainly aren't given a feel for the level of detail, which is what is being highlighted, not the existence of the ship or the Statue of Liberty. I could blow up some image instead and shrink this one back, but I considered it a bonus that the video image was less obscured by the "play" button when blown up. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can now support promotion of this article. I still have one issue, but it is not serious enough to prevent my support. I think managed may be a poor choice of word to describe Fitzsimmons' innovation; it could easily be misunderstood. I suggest a substitution something like managed this > addressed this problem. SpinningSpark 16:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the support. I've made the suggested wording change as well. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ian Rose[edit]

I've decided to recuse myself from delegate duties on this one; I copyedited for prose and spotchecked a source, and have one recommendation re. presentation (see below):

  • I found a fair few things in the lead that looked like they could stand some work and copyedited accordingly: aside from tweaks to the expression, McCay's life dates didn't seem necessary there as they could be found in the main body, and World War I is really too broad and (I hope!) well-known a subject to benefit much from being linked as it was, so I substituted it with a link to American entry into World War I. I also copyedited the Background section, among other things removing a dup link for Little Nemo and again substituting the World War I link for something more meaningful.
  • I was a bit concerned that "fluid and naturalistic" sounded like close paraphrasing but having spotchecked all six elements cited to that source (Bottomore), I'm satisfied that everything was reported accurately with only a word or two borrowed ("dark", referring to the mood of the film, and "fluid" referring to the animation, and I can't think of useful alternates for those myself).
  • Now, presentation-wise, I get where you're coming from re. the film file, Curly, but I agree with Spinningspark here. I find its size and central position -- producing stacks of surrounding whitespace -- quite off-putting and suggest either reducing and moving it per his suggestion or simply putting it (sans image) in External Links. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • File resized and moved. Grudgingly, mind you. Grrrrundgingly. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Understood and thanks. One thing though, now I see it moved to the right, on my 14-in 1366x768 screen it does shove the other images on the right down a fair bit, and wonder if it wouldn't be better to place it on the left (even if that puts it directly under the Synopsis section header -- from memory there's no hard-and-fast rule against that). Happy to hear how it looks to others of course... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've decided to ditch the image of McCay instead to free up some space. He appears in the video, anyways. Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vctrbarbieri[edit]

I noticed that when I look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winsor_McCay#Filmography it shows that Gertie the Dinosaur is longer than Lousitania. The Gertie the Dinosaur page also says it's an animated short film just like Lusitania. That seems to contradict "The longest animated film at the time of its release, at twelve minutes" written in Lusitania's first paragraph. Also, Gertie's page lists its Running time to the second whereas Lusitania's rounds it to the nearest minute which makes it more difficult to check this claim. Vctrbarbieri 22:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lusitania is a longer work of animation. The Gertie film includes a much, much longer live-action prologue—the animation doesn't start until over 9 minutes into the film, and comes to roughly four minutes. Originally Gertie was only the animated bits, with no prologue and no intertitles—that version no longer survives, so a running time for it cannot be given.
The Winsor McCay page is a work in progress. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's just that Lusitania says it's "The longest animated film" instead of saying it's the longest work of animation. It seems really problematic when the original Gertie film is longer by 12 seconds and the first sentence on its article says it's an animated film. Vctrbarbieri 00:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded to "work of animation". Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the Reception and legacy subheading is now written "and is often called the work of animation of its time". Also, the running time might as well be listed at 12:07 in the infobox for consistency with how Gertie's article has its running time written as 12:18 Vctrbarbieri 00:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think I'd rather round Gertie, as (a) Nathan & Crafton have made it clear that the version that survives is not complete (at least a few seconds are known to be missing); and (b) the version in the video is not the original, which hasn't survived. Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing the running times deleted from the infoboxes entirely, but I fear to tread there ... I've had bad experiences removing parameters from infoboxes. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I find infoboxes counterproductive for just this kind of reason. They require black and white statements and it is impossible to explain subtleties that are better done in the prose. When I write articles I rarely use infoboxes and anyone who tries to put one in gets reverted first and asked questions afterwards. But I wouldn't recommend going down that road, it can lead to a lot of conflict. SpinningSpark 02:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen far more than my share of the hostilities on both sides—it sometimes seems safer to discuss abortion. I'm pro-infobox, but believe they should be confined to those statements that can be safely made in black-and-white terms, and should be generally applicable to the entire subject of the article (my beef there is with the WikiProject Novels crowd, who insist that {{Infobox book}} must be applied to the first edition of a book—including out-of-date ISBNs and publishers).
Gosh, I just found myself about to write an essay on Infoboxes. CUTCUTCUT! Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest a footnote be added to "The longest work of animation at the time of its release" to explain why Lusitania is not the Longest animated film but instead the longest work of animation. It would clear that up. Vctrbarbieri 23:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Outside opinion: That sounds like an excellent suggestion. It's the sort of distinction that would be best in a footnote. – Quadell (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Argentine animator Quirino Cristiani mentioned in Footnote E? 03:29, 22 Nov 2013
Re-read that footnote many times before I realised my stupidity. Now I'd like to copy edit it soon and see what you think about it Vctrbarbieri 04:10, 22 November 2013
If Quirino Cristiani's 70 minute animated film El Apostal exists, the statement "The longest work of animation at the time of its release" isn't true. If its existence can't currently be proved or disproved, then the word 'allegedly' needs to be added to the beginning of that statement. Vctrbarbieri 16:43, 22 November 2013

oh dear, "it was also the first animated documentary" can't be said either because there's footnote F which means we also can't be certain of that. Also, saying "at 12 minutes" is redundant when it's also put in the infobox for the running time. In fact, the first paragraph now seems like a factual disaster.Vctrbarbieri 17:01, 22 November 2013

I have made a copy-edit of the footnote; I hope it's now acceptable. It's fine for information in the lead to be repeated in the infobox, so it's not a redundancy problem (although the paragraph might flow more smoothly if "at twelve minutes" were removed from the lead). Also, I don't think "factual disaster" is fair at all. Lusitania is the first animated documentary that we can be sure existed, and it's certainly the earliest that exists now. Perhaps adding a "known to exist" or something would be an improvement? – Quadell (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"possibly" would be a better term and would have to apply to the 3 big claims of longest work of animation, 1st animated documentary and 1st serious dramatic work of animation. That's since El Apostal and Crashing through to Berlin probably exist Vctrbarbieri 22:17, November 2013 (UTC)
How about "earliest surviving"? I wouldn't drop the "12 minutes" from the lead—there are earlier sources (by writers who obviously hadn't seen the film) who described it as "feature length", and by calling it the longest I think readers would just assume it was a full-length hour-plus film (if the claims about Cristiani are true, then it certainly wasn't an impossibility). Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How's this? Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Near perfect though I'd have "is often called" replaced with "was possibly" because the present tense of "is" for the past action that was its release doesn't fit well and "possibly" would make "At twelve minutes" read less awkwardly. That or scrap "At twelve minutes". Vctrbarbieri 00:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about "has been"? Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, though I've just noticed a lot of double spaces after some full stops throughout the article. Is this deliberate? If so it is inconsistently applied. Vctrbarbieri 01:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you click through to my userpage you'll see I'm a double-space dogmatist. The only place I see in the article where this isn't applied is in the footnote about running times, which was a result of an edit of the nefarious Quadell. I believe the guidelines say somewhere that we're supposed to avoid adding or removing insignificant whitespaces just for the sake of adding or removing them, so I'll be keeping my OCD in check over this horrendous breach. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mwa-ha-ha. – Quadell (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I have a problem with the rewording of the footnote. The video file we've provided of Gertie is "several seconds longer" than video file we've provided of Lusitania. It's now known with certainty that Gertie is missing at the very least a few seconds; Lusitania is not nearly as well preserved as Gertie, and I wouldn't be surprised if whole hunks of it were missing. The entire live action prologue to How a Mosquito Operates is missing, and other of McCay's films have survived only in fragments. I'd prefer not to get too precise with running times, as it's clear they are not reliable—even "several seconds longer" is far too precise, I think. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked at the IMDB articles for Lusitania and Crashing through to Berlin. The latter is shown as released one month later on August 18th 1918. Just wondering if it's reliable enough to write that the former is definitely the 1st animated documentary and 1st serious dramatic work of animation Vctrbarbieri 00:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)IMDB entries are user-generated, aren't they? I have to wonder where they got that date. Here's a source that says "On August 11, 1918, Carl Laemmle screened the film in New York for the U.S. Committee on Public Information, which approved its release with a few deletions.", so it seems plausible, but it doesn't give the release date, and also says, "This film was compiled from footage originally released through Universal's weekly Screen Magazine and Current Events, a series of animated and newsreel shorts." So was it made up of previously-released material? The animation was supposed to be British, so what did the U.S. Committee on Public Information have to do with it? Sounds to me like there's a highly likelitude that the animation was released earlier—it also makes me think that I should drop the title Crashing Through to Berlin, as it wasn't the name of the animation but the film in which it was included. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it turns out that Universal Film Manufacturing Company distributed some films as Jewel Productions (inc.), Universal Jewel and under other names according to IMDB. It even lists them for Lusitania. Universal Film Manufacturing Company (as Jewel Productions) is what I recommend to be listed in the infobox now with a link to the Universal Studios article for now. 00:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I guess that explains why it was released as part of a Universal newsreel and why it was promoted by a Universal magazine. Hopefully somebody will create the page (or redirect) for Jewel. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Found a "source" that clears up that Jewel was an independent company until it was consolidated with Universal in June 1919 and became a brand name for it. Vctrbarbieri 17:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On Reception and legacy the 3rd sentence is awfully long with 7 commas and 1 semicolon. Also, the 2nd last sentence has square brackets. Vctrbarbieri 17:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've cut up the offending sentence.
      The square brackets represent interpolations interpolation (manuscripts)s, and are necessary. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure what mathematics have to do with the brackets "[t]he most significant cinematic version of the [Lusitania] disaster". Besides that I think Lusitania now reads like a Featured Article and is ready Vctrbarbieri 23:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, you would, if you could read minds. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • So "[t]" and "[Lusitania]" are bracketed since they're entries into the text that were not written/said by the original author? I'm not sure many people would understand that, though it could be just me. Either way, I now Support this article being Featured. Congratulations on the work. Vctrbarbieri 01:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks for your support. Yes, the square brackets are a well-established convention. I'm sure plenty of people aren't familiar with it, but I'm not aware of any better-established convention. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:06, 24 November 2013 (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/The_Sinking_of_the_Lusitania/archive1&oldid=1075160779"