Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Richard III (1955 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Richard III (1955 film)

Archive 1

Peer Review | 2

Article has been expanded, much larger than before, more depth. This article now covers everything that is known about this film, seeing as though information is scarce. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 06:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Weak ObjectSupport : though broad and well-written. It lacks in accessibility of the article (nothing links to it). Plus there are too many lists. The award section should really be dumped into another section like the reception one. Lincher 19:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, well, I've made the awards section a subsection of reception, and added a note of intrest to the "Other Awards" section, you know, just a few stats and things. As for the lists, well, the cast section is moddeled on Casablanca (film) and Revenge of the Sith, both FAs themselves. As for accesibility, you can access this article from each of the principle cast's pages, each of it's award pages, each of Olivier's other films, and from each of the pages that sort films, like 1955 in film. Any suggestions on as to where I should place new links? ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 00:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, looking at other Film articles that are FA status...this one's not too bad, considering that there are no real themes in the film, and that it's a very obscure and not well documented film. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 01:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and in terms of too many lists...there are two. Is that too many? ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 06:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Everything has been modified toward the comments. Lincher 17:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

How Delightful. In that case, I'll... Self-nom ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 23:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Support - Broad, comprehensive, covers all that is known about the film. Easy to follow. Well Done. MAGIC...POOO! 05:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Added some music, might help. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 06:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment-Not bad, but could use some citations in the direction, cinematography, and music subsections. Also, perhaps direction and cinematography could simply be merged and expanded a little under a Production section, while music could be a subsection or its own section. Tombseye 20:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Support-Hmm true enough. Casablanca is a damn good article. Okay, I have no other complaints as I was looking over the article and comparing it to Casablanca and it looks good. My other criticisms may be just subjective at this point, so I'm backing it. Hope it makes it. Tombseye 10:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Support-Great movie starring Laurence Olivier, and also a great direction. L. Olivier had plenty of Oscar Nominations, but only one award (1948). This film is someting that represents him.
  • This FAC escaped my attention, and I posted the following under the peer review. Since it is at FAC, however, I must oppose it.

Smaller sections and subsections should be merged. The sub-sectioning of "Produciton" is really uneven.

  • How in particular do you think I should fix it? Your'e pretty vague

Perhaps make the "Cast" and "Awards" sections into prose?

  • For awards, would make life difficult. Cast Based on other FA Film articles. Actually, so is awards, and there's no real problem there.

There are, as you point out only two lists, but what lists they are!

  • Cast list is large due to fact that most principle players are billed on same tier. Take it up with the ghost of Laurence Olivier

Logically, shouldn't "Awards" come before "Influence?"

  • Done

The excessive block-quotes are unnecessary and disruptive to they eye, even in scanning the page.

  • Done

The long introductory quote in the "Plot summary" has got to go, or be significantly condensed.

  • Done

--Monocrat 22:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm still unsure as to the value of the introductory quote. Perhaps it can just be rewritten?
  • That would defeat the purpose of it. It's an abridged (now) version of the prologue text, which gives good context to the story

Regarding the listy awards section: the subsection headings are unnecessary for such brief discussions, and there's no need to have Olivier's Best Actor nom as its own bullet, which is duplicated in the following text. You could also move the text at the end up, merging it with the Best Actor nom, then following with "Other awards and nominations include:". Considering that most of the awards were won by Olivier, I doubt it would be exceptionally difficult to make that section completely into prose.

  • Done...sort of. Prose just isn't wise for Awards.

And I don't really care how Olivier billed them or how many you include, what is wrong with a simple table with the characters, actors, and maybe how they relate to other characters.

  • It doesn't conform with other FAs. Besides, it's messy, and you can't fit in as much info. This film doesn't have character relations, it's about one guy killing everyone to get the crown. Sort of a lite Macbeth.

I would prefer that discussion of what Olivier wanted from actors, and follow-ups (like for Paul Hudson) to take place in a paragraph, not in a list or table.

  • Once again, conforming with other FAs.

I just don't like the subsectioning in "Production." "Adapting the play" could arguably be moved to the section's lead, and paragraphs 2, 3, and 5 could be reorganized into "Casting and filming" or some such.

  • Done

Furthermore, there are a host of problems with the copy, mechanically and stylistically, keeping it from being "compelling:" e.g., "The cast was entirely made up of British Actors. All of the actors were on the same billing tier in the film, though in reality, Olivier has the lead role;" "Otto Heller did the cinematography for the film." There's more, but it's midnight here, my mind's getting foggy, and I have a busy day tomorrow. Sorry to cop out like this, but I might be back.--Monocrat 03:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Done until you cite more examples.
I can't believe I missed this: per the MOS, if you link to an article in the text, don't put it in "See also."
  • Done

What's worse, there's a link to Cast and Crew of Richard III, which quite nicely lists everyone. There's now no reason to list the whole cast in the main article, unless you want to change the Cast article to a redirect.

  • Whole cast is not listed in main article, only stars. I know, it's confusing, due to the large amount of actors given top billing in the film, but if you look a bit harder, the complete cast and crew lists a lot more people than the main article.

In which case, the above comments stand.

  • Most have been adressed

Otherwise, simply summarize the most important roles and actors, and use Template:Main. That frees up space for discussion of character relations and the rest.--Monocrat 04:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

  • That other article is meant to be a bare bones reference, with complete listing. Not meant to have descriptions and other such stuff.
You cite ealier FAs. In response I'll say that Casablanca was FA'ed almost two years ago, and the more recent V for Vendetta, Ran, Tenebrae, November, and even Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith simply blow this article out of the water in terms of formatting, and possibly content insofar as they are comparable.
  • Getting this article to this point has been a mammoth task, due to the fact that it's a poorly documented film, in that, there are no making-of books, no press coverage, no interviews, so length wise it's always going to look skimpy next to the other films you mentioned.
  • Apart from blaming it on Olivier's ghost, give me a compelling reason why we need bits like "Lately adherent to the Houes of York" breaking up the flow of the list of cast? I don't see why you can't do "Cast" like Ran (film): doing so would fit summary style, and would surpass Characters in Ran. Nevertheless, character/cast lists do seem common practice for film FAs, but the formatting needs work.

That's the way that the cast is mentioned in the film. Why don't I do it like Ran? Quite frankly, I hate what they've done for that section of Ran. I want to find out who's in the film, and quick, and that certainly doesn't help. What I've done is also akin to Revenge of the Sith, the exception being that Sith gives a description of the character, rather than the star. Which is useless in my case. And possible on Sith too.

  • Why is prose unwise for awards? I really don't get it, but if there's been substantial debate about the issue, I'll withdraw the point. Also, is it necessary to have the list of awards above what prose there is?

Why are lists unwise for awards? I don't get it! The information is there, and it's easy to access at a glance, once again, unlike Ran.

  • What I meant by "relations" is stuff like whether the character was a son/adherent of Edward IV or what have you.
  • Well....that is already stated.

I also think that the critical reception could use more material and citations.

  • Reception? The things got about 5 reviews on rt.com, most of which are commenting on how well Criterion did with the DVD. I don't see what I could add there without making stuff up, honestly.
  • Regarding the copy: there are too many instances to fully list here. Broadly, clean up the text in and around your citations (unles I'm wrong, they should be flush to the text employing them);
  • resolved

work on capitalization;

  • well...apart from the prologue text...it's fine, isn't it? And the Prologue text may have some bad grammar because it is a direct copy from the film's opening. DIRECT.

Template:Details if not Template:Main should be used to note "Cast..."

  • Done

These take care of the major mechanical problems, but the stylistic one remain: Consider the entries for Hardwicke, Gielguld, and Olivier in "Cast:" There are uncited assertions of fact and (e.g., Olivier's interpretation of Richard) and interpretations ("can be interpreted as a combination of Olivier's quest for an all-star cast..."), and the prose is plain at best.

Done for Gielgud, and Olivier, but Hardwicke? What's wrong with that? Why would I cite that he came to Hollywood and did supporting roles? That's like citing that the Dinosaurs are extinct
  • Re "Criterion": surely there have been other video releases. I don't see the harm in simply mentioning them.
  • Done.

Secondly, Criterion provides you with the commentary track the documentary —prime secondary sources—but I don't see any citation of either.

  • Because, to my shame, I don't own the Criterion version. Yet. But the commentary is only for insight on the play, not really into the production of the film. According to Criteion.

If you have access to a library database, see what JSTOR and the linke can pull up for film criticism.

  • No dice in that department. As I said, few documentations, review or otherwise, survive.
  • Looking at the more recent FAs, I notice that there's no section on themes. The article on the play seems rather wimpy, so I don't know what to suggest in that department. I understand that it's about a guy who kills for power, but surely Shakespeare and hence Olivier dealt with more than that.
  • Suprisingly, no, this film doesn't really have any themes, which would go against the grain of Shakespeare. Perhaps the bard put in some themes, but Olivier's film is really just for entertainment. It's really just watching a guy pulling of some nefarious plots, and reaping the rewards. I know that description doesn't really do the film justice, it's a great film, but it's not an especially deep and thoughtful film.

--Monocrat 12:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's really hard to tell where my comments end and yours begin! :) One, I don't really about Olivier's preferences on the presentation. The list now is unattractive and disruptive to a reading of the article. I don't see anything to prevent you from adopting and modifying the style of Revenge of the Sith.
  • It's a list, just like Revenge of the Sith, however, it is divided up into who's who, and instead gives a short note of interest for each actor. It's not that different from ROTS. I based this thing on Casablanca, and wether or not it was an FA long ago or recently, it's still one of the best FA film articles around.

Two, you're the one who initially said that prose doesn't work for the awards, and I asked why. I feel that prose would be better, especially since most of the nominations and awards are Olivier's.

  • Done. The things I do for a "support".

Three, I disagree as to the availability of online reviews. Google Scholar came up with two promising articles from JSTOR alone when searching for ""richard III" olivier": C.A. Brown (Film Quarterly, summer 1967) and S.P. Cerasano (Shakespeare Quarterly, 1985).

  • That's amusing, due to the fact that one of the articles you mention states that there's not too much critical material available on the film. At any rate, I don't have access to JSTOR from my current location, so it only gives me the first page. I personally can't do it.

All of this said, we seem to be at loggerheads about a good many points. :) --Monocrat 03:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

My apologies if my comments were long-winded for your tastes. I hope you stick to the cleaner discussion format. In any case, while this is not the Simple English Wikipedia, this project is aimed at a generalist readership, mixing cineasts, Shakespeareans, academics, rednecks, dropouts, and schoolchildren. I don't have a problem with large words per se, but there seems no encyclopedic value to either employing Olivier's format, nor does there seem much reason to needlessly alienate sections of the readership for whom the article would be most beneficial as an introduction. And as for nitpicky reasons to oppose, scroll down to see what Tony and TigranTheGreat put Azerbaijani people through. Regarding research and JSTOR, I suggest you contact an editor with access or that you find some method of access. Sources are there. --Monocrat 14:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's gone through a bit of re-tooling now. I'm making a stand on the Cast thing, but I've given in, as you shall see, on all the other points. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 04:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I has improved, but not to where I can support it. Things like "The King" and "His brothers" really should be in the bulletted text. However, I'll remove my objection in consideration of your efforts. Good luck. :) --Monocrat 04:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. The article needs to be copyedited and polished up. Try to get an experienced copyediter to go over it for you.
  2. The Cast and Crew of Richard III (1955 film), what encyclopedic value does this article provide, that an IMDB link wouldn't? (I don't think there is an awful lot).
  3. The reception and criticism section is a little weird. There is a 100% tomatoes rating, yet there is mostly negative comments against the film. (You may want to consider merging those two sections as well).
  4. "It is the most famous adaptation of the play, though in recent times another popular adaptation has been produced, starring Ian McKellen." I know this is nitpicky, but is the Ian McKellen one actually popular?
  5. "Lately adherent to the House of York" Do you have to use the term "Lately adherant"? It's a little cumbersome and I think it would be a bit of a speedbump for some readers.

--P-Chan 06:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC) (Please be neat when replying to my comments. The conversation you had with Monocrat is very hard to follow).

I'll be neater in response, becuase you are neater in statement.

  1. I don't think that it's really that bad, but do you know any good copyediters?
  2. Well, It's neater than IMDb, and it gives links to the actual historical figures.
  3. Yes, it has a 100% tomatoes rating, however, as I stated in my comments with Monocrat, Critical reception on this film is not well documented. Anyway, the major praise of the film seems to be directed at Olivier's performance, which I've now mentioned. The two sections are now merged.
  4. The McKellen version is the only other prominent adaptataion. Its fairly popular yes, certainly not in comparison to and Hollywood blockbusters, no, but in it's own right, yes.
  5. That's actually the wording from the film. If they don't know what it means, well, there going to learn, aren't they, therefore expanding their knowledge, and then the encyclopedia has fulfilled it's task: It's taught someone something new. Plus, this isn't the simple english Wikipedia.

....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 07:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Those are fairly nit-picky reasons to oppose. Oh well. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 11:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to the FA process!! :)--P-Chan 03:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. Try here: Wikipedia:Cleanup (submit early, as it takes a while to get any results!). For a do-it-yourself try here: User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_2a. Of course, you could just ask something you know who has contributed at an FA level. But you know, the article is so short that it should be easy to fix everything quickly.
  2. I'm sure people had some nice things to say about the film itself outside of Oliver.
  3. Yeah it's neater I'll give you that... but stuff like "Jack Curran - Horse Master" may be better for just the IMDB, as it really seems unnecessary to have an article dedicated to listing every single role. Besides you already captured all of the notable elements in the cast section of the main article.
  4. I think your response just highlighted why it may not be appropriate. (It sounds a little bit on the original research side.) "Notable" is a little more neutral, so let's try that.
  5. Dude. That's like... totally poppycock.  :) The articles should be written in a way that is clear and accessible. Maybe just "House of York" would be more appropriate?

In any case, don't take the criticism that harshly. Yes, it's nitpicky, but you know when advice gets to this micro-stage, it probably means that all the really major probelms have already been taken care of!--P-Chan 04:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice.
  1. I've got someone on it, I don't trust my grammatical skills, as highly lauded as they are by English teacher, enough.
  2. Actually, Olivier's performance is so damn good that that's all the crtical praise it needs to be a success. The film, pretty much, is Olivier. If you see the film, you'll know what I mean.
  3. Well, if that article is innapropriate, that's too bad. It's not up for FA at any rate, so if it gets deleted, that's too bad. I just thought it might be useful. It can go, and it won't be missed.
  4. Fine. Done. Hang on...yes...it has been done. Nice.
  5. Well, I've added a little (Members of) into it, for those who find it hard to grapple with "Lately Adherent". Oh, wait. Also done.

And yes, that was poppycock. Sorry. At any rate, it seems that in the 2 days that I've been away, the article has gone under quite a bit of polishing. Nice. Thanks, P-Chan, for being someone who opposes, but also helps out. Thou art truly a prince amongst...Wikipedians. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 04:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Support: It still has some minor copyediting and format issues, but at this point, I can't seem to think of anything major that would sink this FA. Thefourdotelipsis, I encourage you to still get your friend to copyedit this article. But right now, it's ok.--P-Chan 00:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
HEY PEOPLE! CONSENSUS HAS BEEN REACHED ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 03:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Support: Image:Flo-dali.jpg is cutting a paragraph of text in half. I tried to rearrange the image so this didn't happen but failed miserably :) Any chance you can fix this up please? Cheers --darkliight[πalk] 12:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 03:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Thankyou
  • Object—2a. Here are examples.
    • "It is the most famous adaptation of the play, though in 1995 another notable adaptation by the same name had been produced, starring Sir Ian McKellen." Strictly speaking, "though" should introduce a contradiction with the previous statement. I'm not sure this is the case here. And I wonder whether there's a POV problem here, in the absence of references. Is this relative fame just a matter of opinion? <--- This has been addressed, as it now corresponds to a later quote in the body.--P-Chan 03:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    • "Out of the three Shakespeare films directed by Olivier, Richard III garnered the least critical praise. It is also the only film out of the three not to have been nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards, though Olivier's performance was nominated. In later years, the film gained popularity and, through a re-release in 1966, it is the highest grossing of Olivier's three Shakespeare films." Remove both occurrences of "out". Do you like "Shakespeare films"? Isn't there a better wording? "Garnered" implies too active a role; what you want is "received". Olivier's performance refers to his acting, I suppose, not his direction; it's not crystal clear. "It is the highest grossing"—should present tense be used? <--- The problems have been addressed. --P-Chan 02:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
    • "Richard's evil eventually leads to his downfall." Spot the redundant word. <--- Fixed.--P-Chan 02:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
    • "The prologue of the film states that history without its legends would be "a dry matter indeed", so the film does indeed admit that it is not portraying the actual events of the time, rather it is portraying and adapting the legend." Why "indeed" twice in six words? The word is not encyclopedic (OK in quotes, of course). A semicolon after "time" is required to make the sentence grammatical.<--- This has been addressed.--P-Chan 02:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thorough surgery required throughout before considering nomination for FA. Let me know if you want other examples, but you shouldn't need further evidence of the need to find another WPian to assist—preferably one who's distant from the text. Tony 09:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  1. It's relative fame. What can one cite for such a thing?
  2. Present tense should be used, I suppose, because all films are suceptible to a re-release that may alter their gross. Altered "Garnered", Put "performance" in context, altered to "Shakespearean films", removed "out" twice.
  3. Spotted and removed
  4. Fixed

More examples, please. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 10:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  • You ask for more examples. OK, a few, but reviewers here are under no obligation to show you how to fix an entire article. Our function, in relation to Criterion 2a, is to provide sufficient examples of the density of problems in the writing to show that either (1) it should not be promoted, or (2) you should network, and fast, to find copy-editors to assist you. First place to look is similar articles (look at the history pages for good editors). I have a secret list of good editors, but I won't share it; you should be compiling one too.

I'm picking out bits at random to show you that the whole text needs thorough treatment. The problems are everywhere, I'm afraid.

    • "The result was that the film was released in cinemas and on television simultaneously, which in turn resulted in a poor box-office gross." Why not: "Consequently, the film was simultaneously released in cinemas and on television, which resulted in poor box-office returns." Now, this is partly a matter of style, but let's face it, "compelling, even brilliant" prose has to have style. In the end, style can be reduced to technical matters. You need to get better at them, but this won't happen suddenly.
    • "added an extra element"—sure this isn't excessive? (Can we do without "extra"?)
    • "After obtaining both John Gielgud and Cedric Hardwicke,"—"engaging"?
    • "in order to film"—spot the two redundant words.
    • "Olivier took several sittings for the famed painter Salvador Dali, to have a portrait painted." Unclear and awkward.

So, finding collaborators who are interested in this topic is your immediate goal. Fortunately, WP makes it easy for you to identify them; express knowledge of and interest in their work, and they're more likely to be flattered into helping. Tony 10:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Altered, as per request
  • Yes, we can, and will
  • Done
  • Spotted and removed
  • Changed ever so slightly

I know you're under no obligation to spot more problems, but you did say I should let you know if I needed more. I will find more WPians per your request. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 22:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Several Copyediters are now polishing the article like crazy. Your objections have been adressed. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 23:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
No they haven't! We've just started!  :) --P-Chan 23:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
That scares me. But, to tell the truth, it's in pretty good shape. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 03:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
It shouldn't, as this is totally normal stuff. Anyways, I've left a set of questions on the article talk that you might want to look at. They aren't objections, but questions.--P-Chan 04:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I should say that I highly encourage you to answer the questions on the talk. The reference checking has not been too fun, as I'm finding factual errors, which is bad. It's ok for now, as long as you answer the questions on the article talk.--P-Chan 07:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Questions have been answered. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 22:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I guess when I said "mission accomplished" earlier... I must have spoke too soon. Right now, all the problems that have been explicitly identified by Tony, have been addressed. I'm certain, more copyediting can be done, but, I believe, the major issues have been dealt with. In terms of the issues with accuracy in sourcing, I'll just say that I found some errors and fixed them. Are there anymore comments or objections?--P-Chan 07:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Support - So much effort went into bringing the article to the current state. All the minor and major corrections have been addressed. Lincher 12:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Weak Object for now; Support
  • contains an impressive set of cast members is POV
  • until he had to sell it to pay for his children's school fees. cite this
  • What dates/how long was filming for?
  • The rest looks prettty good, though minor things need to be fixed up, such as Laurence Olivier being wikified at least six times.Cvene64 02:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_article_candidates_Richard_III_%281955_film%29_7e1b.html"