Talk:The Jazz Singer/GA2

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

GA Review

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]
  • 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]
WP:LEAD
From concept to choosing a star
Introducing sound
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]
  • 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]
  • 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
  • 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
Plot summary (with complete recorded dialogue)
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]

Comments by Blofeld

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://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:The_Jazz_Singer/GA2"