Talk:The First Woman Jury in America
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Notability[edit]
@Nonmodernist: Hi - I'm reviewing this new article as part of the NPP process, and I should start by saying that I think the film looks interesting, and I hope that it's notable. However, looking at the sources, in the two online references in the article, the film is just included in a list of other films - that establishes that it exists, but it doesn't amount to significant coverage which is called for in the notability criteria at WP:NFILM. Can you outline what sort of coverage it's given in the third source, "The First Woman Jury in America". The Moving Picture World: 892. March 9, 1912.? And, do you have access to any other sources that could be added? Without a minimum of two sources giving significant coverage, I can't see how we can establish notability. Suitable sources would include modern or contemporaneous reviews of the film, discussion in published work about its impact, or anything really that discusses it in some sort of depth. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 16:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- Just to add to the previous comment, I found this on Google books, which looks like the book might discuss the film in some detail, but I don't have access to the book - perhaps you'd be able to access it and take a look? I also came across this, which describes the film as a comedy drama, but which wouldn't really count as significant coverage (it's an advert for a showing). I'm not seeing much else worth looking at on Google, so hoping that you can turn something up. Cheers! GirthSummit (blether) 17:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Girth Summit: I've added two more references. I hope this helps makes the case; given the state of silent films (more than 90% are completely lost) it is significant that the scenario for this one, with images from the film as illustrations, exists, let alone has been digitized so that we can access it online. This is more than we have for literally hundreds of films, many of which have their own WP pages. --nonmodernist (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Nonmodernist: Thanks - that works for me, the 'motion picture world' ref is clearly giving it significant coverage. I think the 'letter of the law' would call for another ref with significant coverage, but I take your point about the difficulty of finding refs for works like this and I don't want to be a jerk about it. I'll remove the notability tag, but I'll leave one saying that more refs would be useful - perhaps there are other reviews out there that could be added. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 19:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Girth Summit: Thanks. I hope as well that more sources can be added. --nonmodernist (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Nonmodernist: Thanks - that works for me, the 'motion picture world' ref is clearly giving it significant coverage. I think the 'letter of the law' would call for another ref with significant coverage, but I take your point about the difficulty of finding refs for works like this and I don't want to be a jerk about it. I'll remove the notability tag, but I'll leave one saying that more refs would be useful - perhaps there are other reviews out there that could be added. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 19:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Girth Summit: I've added two more references. I hope this helps makes the case; given the state of silent films (more than 90% are completely lost) it is significant that the scenario for this one, with images from the film as illustrations, exists, let alone has been digitized so that we can access it online. This is more than we have for literally hundreds of films, many of which have their own WP pages. --nonmodernist (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)