Talk:The Winter's Tale (1910 film)

The Winter's Tale (1910 film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 5, 2015. (Reviewed version).

Film: Silent / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Silent films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Shakespeare Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shakespeare, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of William Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShakespeareWikipedia:WikiProject ShakespeareTemplate:WikiProject ShakespeareShakespeare articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Winter's Tale (1910 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 20:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should complete this within a day or two! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 20:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments[edit]

The lead is slightly too short of that to become GA quality. I would recommend expanding it to fully summairze the article. Ideally the plot and reception could make up at least a small paragraph in the lead

Expanded. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All instances of "King" and "Queen" need to be capitalized in the plot section

No, it does not, but I rewrote the whole thing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The film opens with the meeting of the kings of Bohemia and Sicilia" - can Bohemia and Sicilia be linked? There is only one link in the plot section! WP:UNDERLINK

Done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"While the director of the film is not known, two Thanhouser directors are possible" - would recommend linking this as it confused me upon reading it the first time

This is the name of the company... I removed it as redundant. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The Moving Picture News stated that this was the first Shakespeare adaptation by an Independent producer" - why is independent capitalised?

Because that was the way to refer to all members outside of the Licensed companies. Licensed here refers to those part of the Edison Trust - but that article is lacking and there is none for the Independents. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

""[w]e were asked to inspect and criticize this film" - why is '[w]e' there? Just curious, I've never seen anything like that

Fixed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"This fool serves as an exaggerated proxy" - Fool should be capitalised like before if it is referring to a person!

Not a character name - so the first instance Shakespearean fool also needed to be lower case. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

No dead links, so this passes the GA criteria

On hold[edit]

That's all I could find with this one, but other than the capitalisation issues this is a very nice little article. It's a shame it's not on YouTube or something. Anyway, I'll leave this on hold for the standard seven days. Thanks ☯ Jaguar ☯ 18:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar: It is on Veoh. Ned Thanhouser also has it linked on the page for Bowers encyclopedia. Another version with commentary by Judith Buchanan is here. These are official links, but I have not added them to the website because of several points. First, the music is by Raymond A. Brubacher and is likely copyrighted. If you want to appreciate the film and spend 10 minutes watching it - I'd watch the commentary version by Buchanan. The film takes some liberties with the plot and you need to be familiar with the original Shakespeare production to follow otherwise understand the action. It is a rare survivor from a key period of time, but as mentioned - this incomplete - because it is missing its final scene. Also, all fixes are done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close - promoted[edit]

Thanks for that. I'll have a look at this film as anything related to the very early 20th century is my favourite period in history. I'm familiar with some Shakespeare but I don't know about this one. Shame about the final scene too. Anyway promoted ☯ Jaguar ☯ 22:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]