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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:26, 31 January 2009 [1].

Nominator(s): Otto4711 (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe the extensive additions I've made over the last few weeks bring the article into compliance with the criteria. Whale was an extremely important director, the bulk of whose works have been largely forgotten and unavailable. He was also a fascinating person and almost unique for the Hollywood of his time in that he lived as an openly gay man throughout his career. Thanks to User:Brianboulton for a strong peer review with many helpful suggestions. Otto4711 (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note this FAC was not transcluded on the 14th, rather January 16. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3

• File:Dp2pa0122a.jpg - The fair use rationale needs to list the copyright holder.
• File:Whale.jpg - Please add an author, source, and date for this image. Please also add a location for the statue - where it is located affects the freedom of panorama. Note also that the PD tag needs to be replaced.

Hopefully these are easy issues to resolve. Awadewit (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no way of knowing what the copyright is on Dp2pa0122a.jpg so I replaced it with another image, including fair-use rationale and left a note on the uploader's talk page to see if he has the information about the original. I assume it's a publicity still by Universal but have no way of verifying it. I have added the information on the statue based on the notes left by the uploader, User:Angry candy. The statue is located in Dudley, England. Otto4711 (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• If I am reading section 62 of the UK's Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 correctly, the copyright on the statue is not infringed by the photograph. Otto4711 (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Image issues resolved. Striking oppose. Awadewit (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

• Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=2977

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The find a grave reference is included only because it includes a photo of Whale's marker with the incorrect date. I believe that it is sufficiently reliable for that single purpose. Otto4711 (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the picture needed as a source though? How do we know that the picture hasn't been doctored, etc? (Granted, it's unlikely, but ...) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it "needed" in the sense that the article stands or falls on it? No, but I can't see the harm in linking to it. As for the doctoring question, how do I know that any photograph that I did not personally take and upload myself isn't doctored, and even if I know it, how does anyone else? We'd have precious few if any images on Wikipedia going by that standard. Otto4711 (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that you're using that picture as a source of information, whereas most pictures being used in articles are more ornamental, and not being used as sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the likelihood of the picture's having been faked is so infinitesimal as to approach zero. I believe that it is reliable for use in the article to establish the dates that exist on James Whale's columbarium. Otto4711 (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to see some evidence that the Findagrave site has editorial processes and fact checking, just as we do with any other source. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that the picture is faked is ludicrous, but to Hell with it, I'll take out the note. Waaaaaaay more trouble than it's worth and already consumed far too much time. Otto4711 (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All newspaper names italicized.

• Inconsistent date formatting throughout (the article starts with international dates, appropriate for a British topic, but switches halfway through). WP:OVERLINKing and WP:PUNC need review. Large reliance on one source. Faulty WP:DASHes (spaced emdashes are not used on Wiki). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Date formatting corrected, except for instances that don't have years. I am unsure of the correct European format in the absence of a year. Otto4711 (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Are there specific links that you believe violate WP:OVERLINK? What's there seems to be fairly relevant so guidance in this area would be appreciated. Re: reliance on the Curtis book, I agree that a greater diversity of sources is always preferable, the article currently contains some three dozen different sources. Re em-dashes, if the original source uses spaces, aren't we supposed to replicate the source as it appears? Otto4711 (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• If I'm counting correctly, I have 67 now 62 58 about 50 references to the Curtis book (including two that are quoting someone else) and 70 now 72 75 close to 100 references to other sources currently. I am continuing to try to diversify the sourcing. Is there some ratio I should be aiming for? Otto4711 (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Dashes and punctuation appear to be in compliance with appropriate policies and guidelines. Links appear to be relevant and within guidelines. Sourcing is approximately 2:1 non-Curtis:Curtis. Otto4711 (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments and suggestions:
• There is no reason Whale's article shouldn't be an FA and good for you for taking this on. Having just finished The Celluloid Closet and its associated film documentary a few days ago, it's timely that your request appeared on my talk page.
• The Hollywood section is a bit disjointed and reads like an extended timeline, and would benefit by exploring themes in concentrated detail. I have some suggestions, so let's see what you think of them. Explain the studio style of film making, which is no longer in use, and which prescribed what films directors were allowed to make. Explain the Hays Code. Organize Whale's film career in blocks. Instead of going from year to year, skipping from film to film, discuss how many and how they were made (1 paragraph with studio system), the reception his films received, both critical and financial (1-2 paragraphs), and the genres of films he made, concentrating on the horror genre and how he did not wish to be pigeonholed (2 paragraphs). Break down the Post-film life section: you can add a subheading for his suicide. I like the Sexuality section because it addresses a theme. Even in biographies where on the surface a man's life is told from one year to the next, themes can be connected and concentrated. When you make those connections really strong for the reader, the reader feels smarter while going through the article. What kinds of themes in Whale's life were highlighted by reliable sources? Professional pride? Loneliness? Artistic expression in the face of a machine (the studios)?
• You may be able to use stills from film trailers as images, as trailers from the 1930s were not under copyright. Awadewit knows some about this, and of course, Elcobbola. Consider including a couple.
• If you would like for me to give more explicit suggestions on the article talk page, I can do that. I've been in my own article for a while now. --Moni3 (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Detailed suggestions are always welcomed. Otto4711 (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now by karanacs. The prose needs a bit of work. Also, I feel like the article is doing a lot of "telling" without a lot of "showing". It's not always enough to tell me that something is important; it is much more meaningful to have text that explains why somthing is important.

• The prose needs a little massaging. Please note that these are examples only.
  • Vary your sentence structures when possible. Every single sentence of the first paragraph of the first section (Early years) begins with "he" or "Whale".
  • There are areas of the prose that could be tightened. Go through each sentence and remove the words that don't add a lot of value (For example: It was during his imprisonment that ' could easily be During his imprisonment - and that reads much more clearly) (Example 2 - why two sentences that describe when he met Doris Zinkeisen? It could easily be reworded into one)
  • Lots of repetition in phrasing -- see several paragraphs in the Hollywood section that speak about "next film" or "next.."
  • Parts of the Hollywood section feels more like a list expanded just enough to turn it into prose. Maybe it needs better transitions or a little more detail about what makes those films (and his role) special.
• The article mentions that "around this time...Whale met David Lewis". For the sake of people who didn't read the lead (or just skimmed), it might be wise to explain a little who Lewis is/why it is important that we know that Whale met him at this time
• The Hollywood section mentions that several movies were critical successes. Are there any old reviews available that specifically praise Whale? If so, that would be an excellent addition to the article.
• Is it important that we know in this article that The Old Dark House was considered "lost" but was found again? That might be better relegated to a footnote or a different article.
• "interfere with his plans for the remake of Show Boat, " - is the planning important? This is the first that we have heard of it. And how would Remember Last Night? interfere last than the Dracula movie?
• What about his version of Show Boat makes it the "definitive film version"
• Is there any more information about why The Road Back was so controversial? There is not enough information here for me to figure out why Germany would have been upset about it
• Is there any information about what changes were made to The Road Back against Whale's wishes?

Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll take another spin through the prose. Re the specific notation of TODH being thought lost, it's to illustrate the idea that much of Whale's work has fallen into obscurity which is touched on in the lead. TODH is one of the few of his films that's readily available so it seems important to note that this film had also vanished for several decades. Otto4711 (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.