Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Witchfinder General (film)

Witchfinder General (film)[edit]

Previous nomination

This nomination predates the introduction in April 2014 of article-specific subpages for nominations and has been created from the edit history of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests.

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page unless you are renominating the article at TFAR. For renominations, please add {{collapse top|Previous nomination}} to the top of the discussion and {{collapse bottom}} at the bottom, then complete a new nomination underneath. To do this, see the instructions at {{TFAR nom/doc}}.

The result was: not scheduled by Bencherlite ^Talk 16:23, 17 October 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Witchfinder General is a 1968 British horror film directed by Michael Reeves and starring Vincent Price (pictured), Ian Ogilvy, and Hilary Dwyer. The screenplay was by Reeves and Tom Baker based on Ronald Bassett's novel of the same name. A low-budget film of under £100,000, the story details the heavily fictionalised murderous witch-hunting exploits of Matthew Hopkins, a 17th-century English lawyer who claimed to have been appointed as a "Witch Finder Generall" by Parliament during the English Civil War to root out sorcery and witchcraft. The film was retitled The Conqueror Worm in the United States in an attempt to link it with an earlier series of Edgar Allan Poe-related films starring Price. Reeves featured many scenes of intense torture and violence that were considered unusually sadistic at the time. Upon its theatrical release in 1968, the movie's gruesome content was met with disgust by several film critics in the UK. In the US, the film was shown virtually intact and was a box office success, but it was almost completely ignored by reviewers. The movie eventually developed into a cult film and it was named the 15th greatest horror film of all time. (Full article...)

I'm nominating this on behalf of Hal Raglan, with his consent, as an option for Halloween. This article was promoted to FA in 2006 and looks to be in good shape for an older FA. Unless my calcuations are off, this should receive at least 3 points: 1 for date connection (horror film on Halloween) and 2 points for age (promoted two or more years ago). Imzadi 1979 → 01:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment POTD on 31 October will also be about a film (poster from the 1932 film The Mummy); this has been scheduled since June. I don't mind having both run at the same time, but the TFA delegate should be aware. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, spotted that at User:Bencherlite/Future TFAs, TFLs and POTDs <plug, plug>, and thanks for letting everyone else know so they can take this into account if they want to when commenting. Bencherlite ^Talk 23:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Checklinks found three dead links so I tagged two and fixed one. ~~One of them is File:Cry of the Banshee.jpg, which was deleted at the beginning of the year, so the original source for this could be used instead.~~ Edgepedia (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Already fixed those two. Imzadi 1979 → 23:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Given it's a British film, the word "movie" should be removed from the blurb (and also the article). Espresso Addict (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As this one hasn't so far got much in the way of comments on its date suitability, does anyone have any alternative suggestions for a 31st October TFA? We have a few bat articles, though we're lacking in ones with decent images; Malkin Tower has just passed FAC (but I doubt Eric Corbett will thank me for mentioning it here in this context); or we could run a non-Hallowe'en article for a change, either Sea or something else. Thoughts? Bencherlite ^Talk 19:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Malkin Tower was a joint effort with BigDom and Trappedinburnley, so I wouldn't stand in the way of it being featured on Halloween. I think it might be a reasonable choice in fact. Eric Corbett 19:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) I'll ping them: @Trappedinburnley: and @BigDom:... Your thoughts? It would make a change from horror films (which we've had the last couple of years) and contrast with the POTD too. Bencherlite ^Talk 19:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. BigDom (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. Anything I can do to improve its chances? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page unless you are renominating the article at TFAR. For renominations, please add {{collapse top|Previous nomination}} to the top of the discussion and {{collapse bottom}} at the bottom, then complete a new nomination underneath. To do this, see the instructions at {{TFAR nom/doc}}.

The result was: not scheduled by Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Witchfinder General is a 1968 British horror film directed by Michael Reeves and starring Vincent Price (pictured), Ian Ogilvy, and Hilary Dwyer. The screenplay was by Reeves and Tom Baker based on Ronald Bassett's novel of the same name. A low-budget film of under £100,000, the story details the heavily fictionalised murderous witch-hunting exploits of Matthew Hopkins, a 17th-century English lawyer who claimed to have been appointed as a "Witch Finder Generall" by Parliament during the English Civil War to root out sorcery and witchcraft. The film was retitled The Conqueror Worm in the United States in an attempt to link it with an earlier series of Edgar Allan Poe-related films starring Price. Reeves featured many scenes of intense torture and violence that were considered unusually sadistic at the time. Upon its theatrical release in 1968, the movie's gruesome content was met with disgust by several film critics in the UK. In the US, the film was shown virtually intact and was a box office success, but it was almost completely ignored by reviewers. The movie eventually developed into a cult film and it was named the 15th greatest horror film of all time. (Full article...)

Most recent similar article(s): Star Trek: First Contact November 22, 2016
Main editors: Hal Raglan
Promoted: October 1, 2006
Reasons for nomination: Non specific date request. I'm nominating this as it looks in good shape and is (by nature of its age) a different topic from one commonly seen recently. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - A 2006 promotion and while it is quite well written, I'm seeing sources such as Video Watchblog, DVD Maniacs and DVD Drive-In. Suggest a run through FAR before main page. Ceoil (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok good point. I was sloppy and didn't notice this. ~~Best to can this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)~~ Just realized I might be able to replace/update some sources, so give me a few days more... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Casliber, is this still live? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme a week to see if I can find something. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No edits here for two weeks, so no consensus. I would have closed this by now if there were not vacant slots. Cas Liber any reason not to do so now? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually re-reading I think there is quite a bit to look at, so no, just close it and if/when it gets improved we'll renominate then. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]