Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ralph Bakshi/archive4
- 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 User:SandyGeorgia 05:18, 20 December 2008 [1].
Ralph Bakshi[edit]
- Nominator: User:Ibaranoff24 (talk)
The article has been greatly improved since its last FAC, and should be ready for promotion. Documents the history of an important figure in the history of American animation. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 08:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Comment
There is an undisambiguated link to Marvel, and Foofle is a redirect to an unrelated subject. William Avery (talk) 13:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This has been corrected. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Comment I am currently doing a requested copy edit of the articles, and came across the following quotation: "The conflict between Avatar and his evil brother Blackwolf is borh cliched and mostly..." near the end of the "Controversy and shift towards fantasy film" section. I don't want to change the "borh cliched" line because it's a quote, but someone might want to check the source and see if that was a typo in the original book or if it crept in when the quote was added to the article. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just noticed that the same quote has "neccesarily" in it, which should probably also be checked. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you are correct, both of these are typos, and have been corrected. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Copy edit complete. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
- http://www.blackbookmag.com/comments/ralph-bakshi-on-the-fritz deadlinks
- Newspaper titles should be in italics. If you're using {[tl|cite news}} you use the work field to do so.
- What makes the following reliable sources?
- All of your links need to have last access dates. I noticed current refs 6 and 7 at least are lacking them, please double check all of your references.
Current ref 8 (Maltin,...) is lacking a page number)- It's normal to put article titles from magazines in " "'s, instead of italics.
Current ref 19 (Review of heavy traffic Hollywood reporter) has no publication date.Current ref 21 (the Dec 1973 Variety something) what is this? An article? Surely it has a title? Page number? Something?Current ref 35 (Leonard Maltin..) first it should be Maltin, Leonard to match the rest of the refs, second, it needs a page number.- Per the MOS, link titles in the refs shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original.
Current ref 49 (Gibson,...) is lacking a page number
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jim Hill is a notable animation commentator. The Media Coalition citation can probably be taken out. Desert Exposure is an Arizona newspaper. The articles that are missing information are cited from Cohen's Forbidden Animation book. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- What has been taken care of? And are you saying that you used citations for works you did not consult when you say that the "articles that are missing information are cited from Cohen's Forbidden Animation book"? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The information was listed in Cohen's book. In a few instances, I cited the sources that Cohen used, which were given in the back of the book. Some of them were missing information. Thus, the citations are presented as they were printed in the source list for Forbidden Animation. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- You need to cite that information to Cohen's book then, if you did not actually utilize the other works yourself. Ealdgyth - Talk 05:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gotten articles on three films by Bakshi using the same kind of formatting and writing style, and I've never been asked to do so before, nor has this kind of formatting deterred the success of a FAC. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 07:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- It's basic citation 101 that you cite to where you found the information, not where the source you're using got the information, unless you also accessed and verified that information with the source's source. I learned this with the very first term paper I ever wrote. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also see WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT (thanks David!) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ealdgyth asked me to read over this discussion and see what I thought. She is right; you must cite where you got the information, not where your source got it. If you have done this before and no one has complained it is likely because no one realized that was happening. It is always possible (and usually likely), that the intermediate source (the book you read) picked and chose information out of the original source, leaving out other info, and may have added their own interpretation of what was in the original source. If you want to do proper attribution in the text of the article, you may say that "According to Author Y, the magazine XXX on ZZ date said.....". But this must be cited to the book that you read, because it may not be a 100% accurate representation of what the magazine actualy said. Karanacs (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I entirely agree with the above: cite to your source. The form which Karanacs suggests is correct procedure when you wish to refer to an original source that you don't have; I have often used it. Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I also agree 100 percent - the place where you found the information is the place that must be cited (also making clear where they say they got the information). For another example of this in a FA, see, for example, Ref. 61 in Joseph Priestley House ("Qtd." is "Quoted"). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- I also agree 100 percent - the place where you found the information is the place that must be cited (also making clear where they say they got the information). For another example of this in a FA, see, for example, Ref. 61 in Joseph Priestley House ("Qtd." is "Quoted"). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I entirely agree with the above: cite to your source. The form which Karanacs suggests is correct procedure when you wish to refer to an original source that you don't have; I have often used it. Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ealdgyth asked me to read over this discussion and see what I thought. She is right; you must cite where you got the information, not where your source got it. If you have done this before and no one has complained it is likely because no one realized that was happening. It is always possible (and usually likely), that the intermediate source (the book you read) picked and chose information out of the original source, leaving out other info, and may have added their own interpretation of what was in the original source. If you want to do proper attribution in the text of the article, you may say that "According to Author Y, the magazine XXX on ZZ date said.....". But this must be cited to the book that you read, because it may not be a 100% accurate representation of what the magazine actualy said. Karanacs (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gotten articles on three films by Bakshi using the same kind of formatting and writing style, and I've never been asked to do so before, nor has this kind of formatting deterred the success of a FAC. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 07:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- You need to cite that information to Cohen's book then, if you did not actually utilize the other works yourself. Ealdgyth - Talk 05:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The information was listed in Cohen's book. In a few instances, I cited the sources that Cohen used, which were given in the back of the book. Some of them were missing information. Thus, the citations are presented as they were printed in the source list for Forbidden Animation. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- What has been taken care of? And are you saying that you used citations for works you did not consult when you say that the "articles that are missing information are cited from Cohen's Forbidden Animation book"? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Query Hi, the claim that the 1978 Lord of the Rings Film "laid the groundwork for future adaptations of the book" is quite controversial and I think would need a citation. Also could the sentence "director John Boorman was attached to direct adaptation of The Lord of the Rings" be revisited? Should it be "director John Boorman was (attempting, contracted or planning?) to direct an adaptation of The Lord of the Rings"? ϢereSpielChequers 23:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's too controversial, considering that Peter Jackson has acknowledged the film as an influence on his own adaptation. Reworded John Boorman sentence. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.