Talk:The Public Enemy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Public Enemy was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Delisted version: February 21, 2007

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

Contents 1 Reason for "top importance" assessment 2 GA awarded 3 Cast Section 4 Result of the GAR 4.1 The Public Enemy

[edit] Reason for "top importance" assessment

This flick marks an important turning point in Hollywood film and had significant cultural/political ramifications beyond the world of entertainment. Improved sound recording technology allowed a protagonist who does not speak the Queen's English. Instead we get Cagney, in the role that catapulted him to fame, speaking a machine-gun English. It's perhaps the most memorable of the gangster movies and helped inaugurate that genre. The movie offers a powerful critique of prohibition and inspired the 'war on crime,' which was a vehicle for J. Edgar Hoover to turn the FBI into a powerful force. The war on crime included recruiting Cagney to star in an antidote to The Public Enemy, G Men, in an attempt to subvert the gangster movie genre into a pro-law and order phenomenon. Bobanny 17:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA awarded

Definite good article for this early Cagney film. Keep up the good work for this and other Cagney film articles. Wiki-newbie 15:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cast Section

What makes it redundant? If you are referring to the infobox, it is supposed to be redundant to that... Cbrown1023 21:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I just thought it was excessive to list the cast in the infobox, the opening paragraph, and in a separate section. I would suggest checking out other movie articles and seeing what the norm is (I'm not stuck on this position or anything). It'd also be nice to find out if there are any movie Featured Articles as a guide for further improvements on this one. It definately could be expanded, in which case repetition wouldn't seem so, well, repetitive. I was amazed when I saw how comprehensive the article for Bohemian Rhapsody was, considering it is just one song on one record -- so imagine how much this thing could be enlarged with a bit more research. Anyway, thanks for all your work on this. Bobanny 21:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

As a follow-up, here's a page that lists featured film articles. I looked on Blade Runner and the same redundancy exists there, but the cast section provides additional information on cast members in relation to the film, thus making it more than just repetition. Bobanny 22:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. :) I'm one of the people who edits the guidelines for films. :) You could've also checked Category:FA-Class film articles. Cbrown1023 22:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Result of the GAR

[edit] The Public Enemy

result:Delist 5-2

Too short and not enough sources. Chaldean 02:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I dunno about this one, plot sections are generally never sourced, (I mean, what can someone do, find the timestamps in a movie where something happens? :/) and the other stuff doesn't seem that bad, some movies just aren't as famous or notable as others. Homestarmy 03:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The point of GA is for short articles of FA quality. Wiki-newbie 11:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Eh? The Beatles article is ex-FA and around 10,000 characters long. It is in the listings below. LessHeard vanU 22:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That's why it's a long nomination. Look at the Candidates page please, in reference to Chaldean's objection. Wiki-newbie 18:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Just a note, the editors of this article were not properly informed of this nomination by the talk page announcement. Cbrown1023 03:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, no critical issues IMO / Fred-Chess 13:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Since when have IMDb trivia sections been considered a reliable source? Hbdragon88 23:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Remove. The references are to not-very-reliable sources; the prose isn't up to much; and the main omission from the content of the page is any comparison with other similar movies that might give it some context. The Land 21:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Remove Needs more reliable references. The JPS^{talk to me} 00:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment, this is a rather obscure movie. Can you mention any more reliable sources than those used? / Fred-Chess 16:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep there is no reason to remove, all reason listed above are trivial. No articles can be perfect, but this one clearly does meet criteria. Wooyi 16:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to tip this towards a consensus and say Keep. The article fits the criteria as far as I can tell and agree the reasons given are trivial. We'll give it a couple of days before archiving to see if anyone comes out with a fantastic reason to say otherwise. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• delistper above. Rlevse 03:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• DelistSumoeagle179 12:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• DelistRlevse 01:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)