Talk:The Jazz Singer/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 14:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might need a few more days for this piece. Lemurbaby (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a nifty piece of coding, and one I've never seen before. Thanks for sharing the examples. I've added the conversions in now. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red XN Note done in a lot of places like (not necessarily a complete listing):
  1. The production cost for The Jazz Singer was $422,000 (US$5,646,069 in 2013 dollars[1])[24]—a large sum, especially for Warner Bros., which rarely spent more than $250,000. It was by no means a record for the studio, however; two features starring John Barrymore had been costlier: The Sea Beast (1926), a loose and entirely silent adaptation of Moby-Dick, at $503,000 and Don Juan at $546,000...
  2. for fifty cents, while the price at my theatre was $3.00
  3. $250.00 a week--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • User Betty Logan went through and removed a few of these - she was applying the same approach as me, that the purpose of adjusted amounts is to help the reader understand the relative significance of the dollar amounts mentioned. By providing the inflated amount for Jazz Singer in the first example you list above, I've enabled the reader to understand the relative value of the production cost for the film, but it is debatable whether there is value in adding the adjusted amount for the typical amount Warner Brothers spent, since the two numbers are already being used comparatively. The reader can understand the magnitude of the additional production costs of the film relative to the average without converting the amount (and I believe the specific amount of $250,000 was already converted elsewhere in the article anyway). Too many conversions where they don't add significantly to the reader's understanding can become counterproductively distracting. I think rather than adding conversions to everything (and Betty Logan has provided explanations for why conversions in some cases would go against WP MoS), it would be most helpful if you could identify any remaining instances where the dollar amount needs to be converted to help the reader understand the significance of amounts provided in the article. - Lemurbaby (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Red XN--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does that symbol mean - that you accept the issue is fixed, or you don't? -Lemurbaby (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find where the issue is here - I've searched for links around "The Jazz Singer" redirecting to "Jazz singer" and it's not showing up when I search. Lemurbaby (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never mind, it seems the bot was picking up the redirect notification itself, oddly. I've now removed it. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LEAD
  • This is the last piece left to do. It's already getting late here so I'll have to leave this until tomorrow. Lemurbaby (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From concept to choosing a star
  • The information in Raphaelson's bio isn't referenced, and it doesn't strike me as critical to the focus of this article, so I think it may be best to leave it out for now. Lemurbaby (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Introducing sound
  • I'll see if I can find that tomorrow. Lemurbaby (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haven't been able to find this, but I'll keep looking, and if I ever do find it, I'll be sure to add it. Lemurbaby (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While Jolson was touring with a stage show during June 1927, production on The Jazz Singer began with the shooting of exterior scenes" Should second unit be linked in here somewhere?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Premiere and reception
  • I wikilinked the name of the theater, and the linked article confirms that the theater (before it was demolished in the 80's - a pity) was located on 47th and Broadway at Times Square. Lemurbaby (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not quite sure I understand what you have in mind. The illustration fits this section well since the section discusses the premiere and the photo depicts the opening night. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text "the show premiered at the Warner Theatre in Times Square on September 1925" is two sections above the image. The section with the image does not include either Times Square or Warner Theatre in the text.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean the paragraph it's next to in the Premiere section? Judging from the placement of other images in the article, I suppose it was put in the middle of the section (like the other images) for consistency and aesthetics. But since you want to see it at the top of the section, I'll move it. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's mentioned earlier in the article that she's the daughter of Harry Warner, the oldest of the Warner brothers. Lemurbaby (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think "Harry Warner had stopped taking a salary and his daughter Doris 'recalled that Harry had pawned his wife's jewelry and moved the family into a small apartment at the time The Jazz Singer was in production.'" is punctuated correctly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems to be okay now. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quoted material was not something Doris said, but rather a sentence from the book. With the punctuation you propose, the verbal tense inside the quoted material would have to change. There's no need for it to be a quote, though, so I just removed the quotes entirely and rephrased the information instead. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Commercial impact and industrial influence
  • "It ultimately returned a worldwide theatrical gross rental of approximately $2.6 million, making a profit of $1,196,750."
  • It's theatrical gross; I've reworded it to make that clearer. Lemurbaby (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noted - I'll have to come back to that tomorrow. Lemurbaby (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added conversions where they provide some useful sense of relative values, without causing unnecessary clutter. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above - which instances do you think require conversions for the reader to be able to understand the relative value of the amounts indicated (within WP MoS guidelines)? Lemurbaby (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy
  • Looking for this - please give me a few more days. Lemurbaby (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Plot summary (with complete recorded dialogue)
  • There is no article on "Broadway revue" specifically, only "Broadway theatre", linked here: "Without his Broadway reputation he wouldn't rate as a minor player." Lemurbaby (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now wikilinked "revue" on the first instance. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Images and sound
  • It's a cameo performance, ostensibly the first one ever musically recorded for film, and he's important enough to have his own article. I admit I don't know much about Rosenblatt but it seems he was important in his time so his involvement in the film may be notable enough to include a photo. Lemurbaby (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I can't find a source that explicitly states this, inclusion would be OR. I've removed the image. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is now on hold. I will be monitoring progress. I hope to reevaluate this in seven days. Please respond to each concern above on the line below it. I will strike concerns as they are resolved.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 09:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - I'm going to have to finish the edits over the coming weekend. Lots of late nights at the office this week. Lemurbaby (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Blofeld[edit]

Peculiar review, seems to be focusing more on trivial things which aren't necessary for GA. Some major things stand out to me.

  • Intro needs expansion to effectively summarize whole article, needs to mention themes, critical reception, legacy. Academy Awards etc.
  • For the plot, I understand the significance of the text being the first talkie but my feeling is that is bloats the article. The first lines, that's OK. but I think the rest of the text belongs on wikiquote; you could include a link to it in the article (see dialogue here). Plot also needs a trim as I think it is a bit too long, but it might be the dialogue doing that.
  • For such a significant film, I think the thematic discussion is quite short, It may be the case that there isn't further material but I think it could be better written. Probably enough for GA.
  • Academy Awards section needs referencing.
  • The sourcing needs sorting out. Much tidier to put notes above the references. See my example in the Nostradamus article. I prefer to see sources wikilinked and with urls if possible.

Overall I think it needs cleaning up, clean up the sources and polish off the prose I think. I can help you out Lemur if you want but my feeling is that it would probably be best withdrawing for now and working on and then renominating at a later date to avoid pressure.

  • I agree - I'll need some time to do this, more than the typical 7 days allowed for the GA review. Can you explain how I withdraw the nomination? Something I've never done before. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think a nomination gets withdrawn by one of the reviewers simply marking it with {{FailedGA|~~~~~|topic=|page=}}. This isn't a judgement on the article, of course, just showing that the outcome was that the review wasn't listed at this time (and that way the review gets archived). Thanks for your work on this one, Lemurbaby! Between this and Deolievarafan, we've had some good classic movie noms coming through GAN lately. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Jazz_Singer/GA2&oldid=714248408"