Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/B-movie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted.

[edit] B movie

DCGeist has written another featured article. See sound film for some of his other work. Compelling prose, proper citation, varied and appopriate images, what more do you want. Andman8 01:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong support - great article, well-referenced, a lot of information. I'd like to see this get featured. I'm a big fan of many of the movies discussed in the article. (Ibaranoff24 08:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC))
  • Just scanned the article for now, but I do have one comment:
    • "Psychotronic" section could use expansion/clarification. I was under the impression that they were kind of quirky movies made by somewhat savvy directors on a low budget who knew the movie wouldn't be very good, and watched by fans more out the spirit of "camp" or whatever than to see a great film. At any rate the "Psychotronic" section doesn't really clearly explain their relationship to other movies called "B-movies". Are all B-movies psychotronic? Are just some? Why is the term actually important (other than that someone important coined it)? Leaves the reader (this reader, at least) confused. Also the statement that "[Weldon's publications] are among the leading works in the field of B-movie literature." is not referenced, and really should be if it's going to be in a FA. --W.marsh 15:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Quite right. Passage edited, expanded, and cited.—DCGeist 00:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Note The leave comments section of the {{fac}} banner isn't working and is redlinked - I've tried fixing it but have failed so far. RHB 22:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I fixed it (by moving this FAC, it was off because of capitalization) --W.marsh 22:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Remember that when you move an FAC, you need to replace it on the FAC page as well. Otherwise, those wanting to add comments using the edit function on that page will instead be editing the redirect page. I've fixed it for you. Gzkn 06:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Thanks... I wasn't thinking about that. --W.marsh 17:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Whole paragraphs lack citations, including the entire Z-movie section. Gzkn 06:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment "Whole paragraphs lack citations"? Are you referring to a new Wikipedia policy, guideline, or best practice not yet generally known? Here is the guideline I'm familiar with: "Attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." All direct quotes in the article as well as specific, substantive paraphrasings are cited. Is there material in the article that you challenge or that you believe is likely to be challenged that is not currently cited? Z-movie section now amplified, with citation.—DCGeist 00:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No need to be so hostile. I was just stating a general fact that paragraphs were uncited...I didn't even object to the article. Like Jayzel, I'm more concerned about large chunks of text being uncited than paragraphs; it's just that paragraphs are large chunks of text. Here's one example of something that could be cited: "The movies now generally recognized as the first classic film noir, Stranger on the Third Floor (1940), was produced at RKO, which would release many more such films during the decade." Stating something is the "first" anything usually necessitates a citation (also, why is it "movies" instead of movie?). Gzkn 03:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, didn't catch this comment until just now. There was no hostility--I just wanted to be clear whether there had been a revision in the citation requirements I was unaware of. As you suggest, large chunks of text without citation can be a concern, but--as I demonstrated to Jayzel--whether they call for citation or not ultimately has nothing to do with the length but rather with the nature of the content. In the example you give, for instance, (a) the description of Stranger on the Third Floor as the first classic film noir is an opinion widely held in the field, common knowledge to all professionals involved in film noir criticism and American film history in general (as common knowledge as, say, "The Jazz Singer was the first feature-length film with live-recorded dialogue"--does that necessitate a citation?), and (b) it has no strong intellectual status, as both (i) the definition of film noir and (ii) the line between "classic" noir and "pre-classic" or "proto-" noir are largely subjective. In both ways, therefore, the statement does not warrant a citation--not only is it material that is easily verifiable by any interested layman via simple reference to a wide range of published sources, it should not be given the imprimatur of a citation. It's an accurate and relevant observation about a generally held opinion in the field, no more or less. I've changed the wording of the sentence to make that a bit clearer. It was "movies" because...um...I can't type.—DCGeist 09:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Follow-up I've expanded the paragraph in question to cover more of the general relationship between the realms of film noir and the B movie. In the citation at the end of the graf, I've made sure to include an article that deals with Stranger on the Third Floor as well as the general issue of latter-day popularity.—DCGeist 12:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, that's fine. No worries. I'll try to look over the article again when I have some more time. Forgot to mention that when I first skimmed through, it seemed quite well written. Good job. Gzkn 02:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentI don't wanna vote Object" yet, but isn't it redundant to have both "lead" and "overview"? Sfahey 20:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment In many cases it would be, but B-movie is a term with two quite distinct, yet intimately related usages. The "Overview" section gives a level of description of the distinctions and relationships between the two different usages/time periods that is more detailed than seems appropriate for the lead, but still needs to be clarified in a conceptual way before the historical meat of the article. "Overview" is simply a more efficient substitute for a section title like "The meaning of B-movie, then and now: distinctions/connections." Do you think the information in "Overview" should all be brought into the lead, or, perhaps, can you think of a more helpful but not unwieldy title for the section?—DCGeist 00:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Information from former "Overview" section integrated into lead per comments of Sfahey and Jayzel.—DCGeist 03:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Overall, it looks good, but I am also hesitant supporting an article with whole paragraphs uncited. I know it hasn't officially become Wiki policy yet, but citing everything really is the way to go, IMHO -- though it's possible to talk me out of my strict reasoning. As for the "Overview" section: combine the info there into the lead. The lead is too short as it is. For an article of this size, at least two, and maybe even three paragraphs would be good. --Jayzel 02:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Point taken about the length of the lead. I'm still confused about this notion of judging that citations are needed on the basis of paragraph structure. You say this "hasn't officially beome Wiki policy yet." What leads you to think it will become Wiki policy? Where has the case been made that it would be a superior policy to requiring citations for all direct quotes and material likely to be challenged? (I'd also add data difficult to verify and/or peculiar to one author to those things that should be routinely cited.) Here's one of the few substantive paragraphs from the article that doesn't have a citation. What would you say needs to be cited?
On television, the parallels between the weekly series that became the mainstay of prime-time programming and the Hollywood series films of an earlier day had long been clear. In the 1970s, original feature-length programming increasingly began to echo the B-movie as well. While there had been dramatic feature presentations made especially for TV since the beginning of the medium's mass commercialization in the late 1940s, they had by and large not crossed over with the realm of the B-movie. In the 1950s, the live television drama—a unique amalgam of cinematic and theatrical elements exemplified by Playhouse 90 (1956–1961)—had predominated.no cite needed because you give an example Over the course of the 1960s, there was a transition to filmed features, most of which either aspired to the prestige of major motion pictures or were intended as pilots for projected series.[citation needed] As production of TV movies expanded with the introduction of the ABC Movie of the Week in 1969, soon followed by the dedication of other network slots to original feature presentations, time and financial factors shifted the medium progressively into B-picture territory.Needs an example or[citation needed] The production of TV films inspired by recent scandals or medical scares harkened all the way back to the 1920s and such films as Human Wreckage and When Love Grows Cold, FBO pictures made swiftly in the wake of celebrity misfortunes.no cite needed because you give an example
—DCGeist 03:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Information from former "Overview" section integrated into lead per comments of Sfahey and Jayzel.—DCGeist 03:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
To clarify, I'm not so much concerned about "paragraphs" as I am "large chunks of text" of not-commonly-known information. If you say "the sun sets in the West",you don't need to cite that because it is commonly known to the average high school student. However, if you say anything more technical about the sun, you should use cites. I guess the main concern I have is some of the info you give smacks of original research without giving citations. I've added comments or cite tags to things I think should be changed in your paragraph as an example.--Jayzel 04:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Examples now given throughout paragraph under discussion. Nothing at present seems citable in this graf. Not sure what is meant by "smacks of original research without giving citations." Specific info is cited. General info is based on synthesis of wide reading of criticism and history in the field--neither "original research" nor citable, just ordinary encyclopedic formulation, easily verifiable by reference to any mainstream consideration of the topic that covers the appropriate time period. (And this is why, I'm afraid, your analogy fails: "The sun is an average distance of 149.6×106 km (92.95×106 mi) from Earth" is hardly "commonly known" to either the average high-school student or even you and me, but it surely doesn't need a cite. The point is that it is commonly known to virtually all concerned professionals and easily verifiable by any interested layman. In the admirable Wikipedia sun article, in fact, there is a sequence of five uncited paragraphs in the "Atmosphere" section. You might be interested in reading them. If you do, I have two questions: [a] How much of the information there did you know before you read it? [b] Shall we challenge sun's status as a Featured Article on the basis of insufficient citations?) So...would adding a "Further reading" section to B movie help?—DCGeist 09:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
You've convinced me. I'm just used to working with more controversial topics involving politics where every period and comma gets cited. I Support. And, yeah, a further reading section would be good. --Jayzel 15:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment Great. Further reading section added. Also finding a few additional spots where references seem helpful.—DCGeist 18:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Just read the new intro and it's fine -- though maybe a bit too long now -- never mind :). By the way, I'm not sure you should have drive-in movie, C-movie, Z-movie, and psychotronic movie in bold. Perhaps italics would be better. Bold is only used for alternate titles of the article and I am not sure they qualify. Midnight movie has its own page and drive-in movie redirect to Drive-In theater. Also, if you leave the info about the actors in the lead, you should probably add a section to the article about Actors of B-Films. Yikes, maybe directors too. Forget that last thought. --Jayzel 04:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment I've weighed this for a while: ultimately, within the context of the B movie article, all of these terms are synonyms of the article title (obviously, of greater or lesser exactitude) and thus boldable per Wikistyle (the Manual of Style standard is actually broader than "alternate title"; it's "synonyms of the article title"). As C movie, Z movie, and psychotronic movie all have sections dedicated to their definition, and thus really call for bolding, I think it's easier for the reader to also have the similarly associated drive-in movie and midnight movie also bolded, even though they have (or sort of have) their own articles. BTW, someone out there might want to write full-dress articles on C, Z, and psychotronic movie--that certainly wouldn't interfere with their existing coverage in the present article, which is intentionally of a nonexpansive nature.—DCGeist 23:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support The article was nominated--a bit before I thought it was quite ready--by a valued fellow contributor who appreciated the article's slow transformation over the last couple months. A week's intensive work, spurred by this acknowledgment and by the comments of those above, has brought it, I believe, to the necessary level.—DCGeist 23:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Last week the article was good enough for FA but now its an amazingly fine tuned machine. I didn't explicitly state my support earlier so here it is. this is now the definitive b movie page on the internet. Andman8 01:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - One of the best written wikipedia film-related articles I've seen. As comprehensive as possible in the space allowed, this should pretty much satisfy anybody with an interest in this subject. Truly deserving of "Featured Article" status.-Hal Raglan 03:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose The entire opening lead is uncited and appears to make several summaries and classifications of B Movies. Who is making these summaries? Who is classifying them as such? There are also several other sections or sentences where summaries are made without sources. It also has small patches of poetic novel-type language like "prurient" (lustful), "handsomely budgeted" (well funded), ""grand sobriquets" (nicknames), "transgressive connotations", which I could do without and feel are more suited to a romance novel than an encyclopedia. I'll ignore the language however, as it is may be a personal thing, if the lead gets sources along with the other sections I could give it a support. Quadzilla99 05:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The lead should be a summary of the entire article, and should generally be free of citations. As long as everything stated in the lead that needs a citation is cited in the text of the article, there's no need citing stuff in the lead. Gzkn 05:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I stand corrected many of the leads are as you say, objection withdrawn. Quadzilla99 07:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Great one. igordebraga ≠ 21:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - tremendous work; sources galore, and a well-written piece of prose as well. Anthonycfc [T • C] 01:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Object. I'd gladly support this as a History of B-movies - but the article currently contains only a giant section on history plus what looks like an overblown 'see also' section ('Associated terms'). I see no sections about making of B-movies, famous movies, studios and actors, influences on and by, studies... Yes, some of those items are covered in history, but unless they are split and appopriate sections added, I cannot support this under current title.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment How curious. Almost all the topics you raise are covered in great detail: the making of B-movies, famous movies, studios, influences on and by. Many actors commonly associated with the B-movie are mentioned both in the lead and throughout the article: by the very nature of B "stardom," there's no way to quantify who the "greatest" B stars are. What more coverage on actors would you like to see? (Important directors and producers also happen to receive extensive coverage.) As for "studies," it's not clear what you mean. Every major historical, industrial, and cultural study in the field is specifically referenced and the historigraphical consensus on different matters integrated into the article. As I'm sure you realize, the topic area is so vast and various that coverage of aesthetic studies of B movies would constitute a large article of their own.
You appear, in sum, to actually be objecting to organization, rather than content. There are only so many ways to rationally organize an article. The article follows one of the most rational systems: chronology, which is the most appropriate to this topic given the transformations of the term, the changing nature of the multiple influences on B moviemaking in different periods, and the way B films and distribution and promotional practices in turn influenced higher levels of Hollywood production. One could have all the information in thematic sections, but then you lose the multi-layered process of transformation and back-and-forth influence. What's happening financially in the industry as a whole at a given time affects what sorts of movies certain studios choose to make at that time; which affects how they distribute and promote them at that time; which affects what other studios and exhibitors do at that time and so forth. To understand the B movie, you need to understand it through history. I see no intelligent way of separating by section the important studios of a given time from the "famous movies" they made at that time from the industrial practices they employed at that time, as you propose. Think about a specific example: the discussion of Kiss Me Deadly that currently resides in the 1950s section. According to what you suggest, the information in that discussion should be split up between say, six different sections, like this:
  • MAKING: At a cost of around $400,000, Victor Saville and his Parklane Pictures company independently produced Kiss Me Deadly
  • MOVIES: One of the 1955 movies most celebrated by later critics is the thriller Kiss Me Deadly
  • STUDIOS: United Artists, then concentrating on the distribution of "programmers," released Kiss Me Deadly
  • ACTORS: Ralph Meeker, who had appeared in only one major film previously, starred in Kiss Me Deadly
  • DIRECTORS: Robert Aldrich directed Kiss Me Deadly
  • INFLUENCES (GENERIC): Film noir and atomic bomb cinema cross generic lines in Kiss Me Deadly
That seems to be what you're calling for. Does that better serve the Wikipedia reader? So...the article is organized in a different way than you might have done it. But it's organized rationally and purposefully. Is your different taste in organization truly relevant to this process?
A few more questions: (1) Your choice of words--"I see no sections" and "what looks like"--suggests to me that you did not actually read the article. As you know, of course, there's a simple principle here: "Please read a nominated article fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination." Did you? (2) If you did, what, if any, crucial information do you believe is missing? (3) Whether you did or not, could you please make a case based on your understanding of B movies for the exact nature and the superiority of your proposed organizational scheme? (4) What do you mean by an "overblown 'see also' section"? The section of associated terms covers, just as it suggests, closely related terms that do not have their own articles, probably don't warrant them, and helpfully rounds out the definition of B movie. What's "overblown" or counterproductive there? Best, Dan—DCGeist 05:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. My god, this is a long article! Guess it's pretty thorough, though.
Currently, there are no wikilinks on terms like "indie" (2/3rds down); many of us are probably aware of what an independent film is, and there's really no need for an explanation in this (already very long) article, but a wikilink might be a good idea, because of international readers who may not be familiar with the term. It could possibly be wikilinked on the words 'independent productions' in the section titled "B's in the Golden Age of Hollywood (1): 1930s". Same for "quickies". I didn't make the modifications myself, as I thought it should be discussed here first.
Done for "independent film" (Wikilinked in lead) and "indie" (Wikilinked at first appearance). Done for "quickie"--nothing to Wikilink it to, so introduction of term rephrased in order to provide explanation of term in present text.—DCGeist 05:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
This sentence: "Republic aspired to major-league respectability while making lots and lots of cheap Westerns" doesn't seem quite encyclopedic in tone.
Right. Edited.—DCGeist 05:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
"Helping to popularize the notion of the C movie was the successful series Mystery Science Theater 3000 (1988–99)..." maybe insert the word "TV" in front of series? Otherwise it looks like it could be a series of films.
Done.—DCGeist 05:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a wikilink to Vampira?
Yes. Done.—DCGeist 05:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I think this sentence needs modification: "The movie stars Maila Nurmi in her Vampira persona and Bela Lugosi, who was dead when the film was made—footage he shot for another project is intercut with the performance of a double with the fortunate habit of covering his face with a cape. " It needs another comma, or some attempt at clarity...
Done.—DCGeist 05:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
No mention of The Blob? Well, I guess with so much information, there really wasn't much room left over. Mystery Science Theater isn't the only series which has riffed on B movies; The Blob was parodied in a low-budget riff called Blobbermouth, and there are several others. Overall, the quality of this article is very good! More comments as I think of them... Firsfron of Ronchester 00:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Reply All those sound good. Will get to them late tonight or tmw. Let me know if any more. Right, sadly no room for The Blob. The Creature from the Black Lagoon has to suffice for mindless major studio horror on one side; the AIP pictures for teen horror on the other side. Sorry, Blob.—DCGeist 01:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Follow-up All comments taken up and addressed. And once again, sorry Blob. Please don't gobbl--........................................—DCGeist 05:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.