Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jack Warner

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 promoted 00:25, 16 March 2008.

[edit] Jack Warner

Self-nominator: I'm nominating this article for featured article because it appears to be well presented, well documented, and reasonably comprehensive. The article benefited from the detailed feedback of several reviewers, whose comments can be found in the peer review archive and on the article talk page. I did not create this article but played a significant role in expanding it. Your comments would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, twelsht (talk) 08:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - well-written and compelling read. A few minor points:

• "Polish-Jewish" or "Polish Jewish" – it varies.

Done Thanks for pointing this out! I referred to a couple of style guides; they recommended dropping the hyphen, except when the compound is used as an adjective. This seems to be an appropriate usage. -- twelsht (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• "Bartering to trappers" (selling to, but bartering with, surely?)

Done

• Duquesne Amusement Company, - what did the company do? I presume film distribution but it's not explicit.

Done

• My Four Years in Germany – you mention they acquired the rights but then jump to saying that they followed up [its] success. What happened in between?

Done Good point! I inserted a sentence that confirms the film was a critical and commercial success. The article no longer jumps from Warner Bros.' purchase of the film rights for Four Years in Germany to an overview of projects developed after this film's success.

• Warner's "right-hand man" – not keen on the scare quotes.

Done Agreed. I'm overly fond of them.

• Darryl F. Zanuck – Why did he resign and where did he go?

Done Good catch! The fact that Zanuck went on to form a rival studio is certainly worth mentioning.

• In the Pre-war and war years section, the backfill sentences about 1917–1918 might be better in the past perfect (had secured, had featured, had produced etc).

Done

• "Angered by the perceived ingratitude of television actors, the studio head never overcame his disdain for the new medium." – the logical connection between these two isn't quite made.

Done The revised sentence should make more sense--I hope.

• MoS: WP:ELLIPSES needs a visit for compliance.

Done The elipses are now appropriately spaced.

• "As the decade of the 1950s progressed" – odd redundant phrasing. And again "the tumultuous decade of the 1950s" later.

Done Agreed. I removed the first phrase, along with the whole sentence. The second phrase now reads, "the dislocations of the 1950s." I wanted to suggest that Warner survived the changes that swept the film industry during that period, not the tensions and uncertainties of the postwar era.

• "chased Jack with a 2 x 4" – what's a 2 x 4?

Done Americans identify wooden planks by referring to their dimensions. (A common size is 2 feet X 4 feet.) This term is probably unintelligible to many people outside the United States, especially considering that the rest of the world uses the metric system. "Wooden plank" will tell the reader everything he or she needs to know.

I know this bit has gone now, but just as a note, 2x4 would be widely understood in the UK as well. We're a bit schizophrenic when it comes to metric measurements. As an example, miles and yards are still the official units of distance on road signs. And if you tell someone your weight in kg, you'll likely get a blank look. 4u1e (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC) (2 inches by 4 inches, btw!)

• I take it that Ben Kamelson and Ben Kalmenson really are different people?

Done Sadly, they are one in the same. Kalmenson is the correct name.

• "where the unconscious studio head lay packed in ice" – unfortunate phrasing :)

Done Most unfortunate :)

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support. All of my comments were addressed when I peer reviewed it. Royalbroil 13:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I as well peer-reviewed the article, and the major problems I had with it (the lead and the overall organization) have been improved greatly. This article is well written, easy to follow, comprehensive, and scrupulously referenced. I give it my whole-hearted support. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments all sources look good

• Support - well-written and well-referenced MOJSKA 666 (msg) 06:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll address your other recommendations as soon as possible. I appreciate your detailed and constructive feedback! -- twelsht (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• The Early years section confuses me. Jack was born in Canada. His parents were born in Poland, then his dad came to the US, then his mother and Harry and Anna came to Baltimore. Two of his older sisters and 'his older brothers Albert and Sam' were born in the US. They moved to Canada for two years. They moved back to Baltimore, then Youngstown, where Sadie and Milton were born. This is all very confusing; who are the mysterious two older sisters? Can you clarify where/when the middle 4 were born? When did they go to Canada, and when did they return? Can you move Jack into the chronology? I realize you may be working with limited information, and I don't want to weigh the section down with tangential information, but I'm having a hard time understanding what's already there. If you can clarify what is and isn't known, I would take a stab at tweaking the section.

Done I agree that this section was a confusing read, and specific references to Warner siblings who were not involved in the studio added to the confusion. I hope the revised version is more reader-friendly. Thanks for pointing this out!

I made additional changes to this section so that it draws more attention to the mogul brothers, in general, and Jack, in particular.-- twelsht (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• The 'see also' link should be in a See also section.

Done

• Why not list his first wife and his son in the infobox? His career was so lengthy and stable that I would fill out the Occupation and Years active fields, too.

Done Good point! -- twelsht (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I added an entry for children and included the name, Jack M. Warner. I should mention that there is some confusion surrounding this name. Warner's son was popularly known as Jack Warner, Jr., despite the fact that he bore a different middle initial. I made a note of this in the "Personal life" section and went on to refer to him as "Jack Jr." I hope that I handled this situation appropriately. -- twelsht (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm going to do a little digging for images—I have a hunch I can find something. Maralia (talk) 14:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have slightly refactored my comments above by striking out & hiding resolved ones; the remaining issues are unhidden above. I have a few leads on images; will keep working on it. Maralia (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible vandalism

Note: Please know that a user who has been blocked in the past has edited this article in a questionable manner. Among others, this user has re-added citations that refer to dubious Web sites and inserted redundant statements, e.g., "Warner was a womanizer." While I have reverted this user's most recent edits, he or she may continue to edit this article. Sincerely, -- twelsht (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with removing that content, even if it is sourced. It's distracting and it contains unnecessary detail. The article contains enough detail about his womanizing without it. Someone must have a chip on their shoulder. You are able to revert all of the other user's edits in a single step if you "undo" while looking at the larger diff. Royalbroil 01:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This is good to know! I'm not sure whether the user intended to vandalize this article. I do know that his or her changes flew in the face of reviewers' recommendations. I left a message on the user's talk page explaining why I reverted his or her edits. Thanks, -- twelsht (talk) 02:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The user found a credible print reference for the anecdote he or she contributed to the article. Problem solved. -- twelsht (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Support from 4u1e. Great article. A few minor points remaining:

• 'His 45-year career was lengthier than that of any other studio head' - I'm still not clear if this is the longest of all time - if it was, can we re-word to something like 'As of 2008, his 45-year career is the longest of any Hollywood studio head' (I'm guessing that we don't know whether any (for example) Bollywood studio head has served longer.)

Done Good point! I specified Hollywood. The reference for this statement is Thomas' 1990 bio of Warner. Perhaps the sentence should read as follows: "At the time of his retirement, and for decades later, his 45-year...." Any thoughts on this would be welcome. -- twelsht (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, strictly what you're saying that 'as of 1990, Warner was the longest-serving studio head in Hollywood', which reads fine, but almost 20 years have gone by since then so it's not a great statement to make. Are there any more recent sources you can use for this? 4u1e (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the less concerned I am that the source is almost two decades old. I overlooked that Warner was the last of the traditional Hollywood movie moguls. The destruction of the old studio system in the 1950s resulted in the retirement or resignation of most, if not all, of his rivals; and current Hollywood studio executives do not wield the sort of power that Warner and his fellow moguls took for granted. I'll revise the sentence so that it points out that Warner had the longest career of the Hollywood moguls; in the absence of new moguls, that record is likely to stand. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks, -- twelsht (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• 'He was the only co-founder of Warner Bros. Studios who was born in Canada' Feels a bit clumsy - is this needed at all, or can it be dropped?

Done I added this statement to draw the reader's attention back to Jack Warner. This section devotes a good deal of space to other members of the family, and I was concerned that Jack had been lost in the shuffle. That said, I agree with your characterization of the sentence as awkward. It interrupted the flow of the paragraph, and the section is stronger without it. -- twelsht (talk) 03:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• It's a question of personal taste, but I really find having a ref after each sentence distracting. Since you are using a small number of high-quality sources, there is scope for just having one or two refs at the end of each paragraph to cover its content. You wouldn't actually be losing any information by doing so. Just a thought.

Ungoing I've reduced the number of references in a few sections. There's more work to be done in this department. -- twelsht (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Quote from Bette Davis: 'We become father and child,' Is 'become' correct?

Done Good catch! -- twelsht (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• 'anti-Semitic pograms' Pogram or Pogrom?

Done Another good catch! -- twelsht (talk) 02:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• 'Moreover, the brothers' attraction to film vehicles critical of German militarism' perhaps 'attraction to filming'?

Done I had some difficulty with this passage because the Warners' attraction to films critical of German militarism predated their move to producton. Perhaps films is less awkward and more inclusive. -- twelsht (talk) 03:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Just after this, you mention 'Four years in Germany', introduced in virtually the same words as previously. Perhaps move this mention to before 'War Brides' and word something like 'As well as My Four Years in Germany, Warner Bros. had in 1917 obtained the rights to...' etc.

Done I had trouble incorporating this information into one sentence, because War Brides was a film the brothers distributed, while My Four Years in Germany was a Warner Bros. production. So, instead, I mentioned My Four Years in Germany in the previous sentence and removed the redundant description of its theme. Thanks for catching this! -- twelsht (talk) 04:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I should also mention that I previously peer reviewed the article, so I could be seen to have some personal stake in it. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.