Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Troika (1969 film)/archive2

Add links
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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14 September 2024 [1].

Troika (1969 film)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Paleface Jack (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An unsuccessful nomination later and some significant copy editing with the help of others, I am renominating this article for a second time. For those of you who don't know about this article it is on an elusive comedy art film. It was directed by artist-turned-filmmaker Fredric Hobbs, and was the first of several that he managed to complete until his retirement from the film industry.Paleface Jack (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support on sourcing, comprehensiveness and prose (having opposed the first nom). This seems to be a visually remarkable but lost film, about which very little is known. I commend PFJ for pulling it all together; a fascinating insight into the genesis of the modern horror genre. Ceoil (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Ceoil! Thouhg it is never classified as horror in any of the sources, it does offer some modern motifs to the genre that are quite fascinating.Paleface Jack (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on sourcing, comprehensiveness and prose per Ceoil. I've had a good hack at the prose and clarified one item in talk. I'm happy that it now meets the standard. John (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks John! Paleface Jack (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

That doesn't matter. All article titles should be given consistently in either title or sentence case regardless of how they appear in the original. (That's why you switched from all caps in the previous comment. :-) )
Ok. (I bet I'm even older.)
  • "Dispersed throughout the segment are clips of a procession of the blue people proceeding across an otherworldly countryside, accompanied by a strange vehicle. At this point, the segment cuts from the cave ..." "Dispersed throughout the segment ... At this point ..." doesn't work: If something is dispersed throughout, there is no this point to cut from.
I revised that a little, removing the "at this point and dispersed throughout"--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You missed this one.
  • "Plot": the 'The Blue People' section seems over-long and over-detailed to me.
    It's out of proportion to the other two segments, but that's more because the film is lost, and little is known about those two. It's not too long compared to other film FAs covering a third of the film. I would however like to see it cited, given nobody outside of those directly involved have seen it enough to make notes. Maybe it could be more suscintly worded, though I think readers will want to know. Ceoil (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In Thrower's plot synopsis, there are more details with that section than any other portion of the plot. I agree with this assessment and will tone it down a little.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil I chose to use a footnote rather than an outright citation to save a little confusion of the readers wondering why there is a citation for a plot synopsis (not a lot of articles on fioms have one). It adds a little more reasoning to a citation for any editor coming in cause I have had that trouble before.--Paleface Jack (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "from whose extended arm hangs". Just the one arm?
The description given by Thrower reads "A female figure reclines, extending her arm from which hangs the faces and forms of flayed humanity. A bird (an owl?) sits triumphantly astride her extended limb, with various grisly horrors dangling below." I had to simplify that because it becomes too confusing and symbolic for the average reader.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with a bachelors degree in arts". Do you mean a bachelor of arts degree?
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "Trojan Horse" is the name of a sculpture or artwork it should be in italics.
  • "it incorporates several different narratives and genres for each segment." Optional: "for" → 'within'.
    Agree....done. Ceoil (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hobbs plays a fictionalized version of himself as the chef and fantom characters." A fantom character is not elsewhere mentioned.
I looked over that synopsis but it does not mention the character of the Fantom. Yet it credits Hobbs as playing the character. It is very odd.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is in much better shape than for its first nomination, well done for sticking with it. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Could not have done it without assistance and advise.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In Ceoil you have an excellent person on board for that. Nearly there. A couple of comebacks from me above and awaiting further comment or action on the "The Blue People" section. Thinking on't, the "The" of "The Blue People" should only be there if it is a formal title, not if it is being used as part of a descriptor. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The only part I would say that should include "the" is the descriptor of the segment, which includes this in my source.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]
  • "homunculus (an artificial human)": That's not quite what a homunculus is – the key part of them is that they are small
Considering the plot synopsis from my source just calls it a homonculus with descriptions that it is make of cloth, I removed the parentheses portion alltogether.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hobbs exits the frame and the film ends": I think there should be a comma after 'frame' between the clauses
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The cast mainly drew from unknown actors": I'm not sure the cast drew anything: "The cast was mainly drawn from unknown actors" works much better
Agreed and done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Morgan Upton, later known for his roles as Wally Henderson in The Candidate (1972)[26] and Mr. Gilfond in Peggy Sue Got Married (1986)": do we need the role names? Seems a bit too tangential and the details clutters the sentence a bit
Agreed and done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these help. - SchroCat (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Alavense

[edit]
  • The use of the Oxford comma should be consistent throughout the text. You have It stars Hobbs, Richard Faun, Morgan Upton, Nate Thurmond, Gloria Rossi, and but Hobbs named them in an interview "The Chef", "Alma Mater" and "The Blue People"
Ah, missed that. THanks for pointing that out. It is fixed now.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a chef wearing ritualistic face paint, begins making - No need for that comma.
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A tall insectoid named Rax (Morgan Upton), exits - No need for that comma either.
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rax, alongside the Attenuated Man, then join a procession of blue people who embrace him as their "savior" - Is there a typo there and should it be "joins"? Or maybe I misunderstood the whole sentence.
"then joins" sounds incorrect and ebbs the flow, at least for me. Though I am willing to change it if you feel it is better.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The way it is, there's no subject-verb agreement. I think you could say something along the lines of Rax and the Attenuated Man then join a procession of blue people who embrace the former as their "savior". Would that work for you? Alavense (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • from whose extended arm hangs many faces and shapes
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • on a 25-minute - I think it would be better if there were consistency with the note, so either spelled out or in figures, but the same for the three instances.
Agreed and fixed it.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • later known for his roles in The Candidate (1972), and Peggy Sue Got Married (1986) - No need for that comma.
Done.
  • Why is the reference after Hobbs drilled the student activists portraying the characters in the marching sequence to march in step laid out that way? Can't the page just be identified using the {{sfn}} template? It's the only instance of this I've spotted throughout the article.
It was left over when I was using that format. I removed it now.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Los Angeles Times should be "the Los Angeles Times".
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The resulting Roseland: A Fable (1970), is - No need for that comma.
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really understand the "Legacy" section, given that it is nothing to do with the film.
The legacy of the film was its success, pushing Hobbs forwards to work on several more films. As such, that is why it is included.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that, but then it might be better to mention it. Why not say that the film was a success and that it allowed for more projects in a sentence or two at the beginnig of the section? The way it is now, I think it is a bit disconnected from the rest of the article. Alavense (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed some of the excessive details of that to basic info (Birth and death of his film career). Paleface Jack (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the article is about Troika, not about Hobbs's career and should hence focus on the film. Anyway: In 1973, Hobbs wrote and directed his last two films. - That full stop should be a colon. Alavense (talk) 06:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Paleface Jack (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Paleface Jack. Cheers, Alavense (talk) 11:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 08:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still unsure about that "Legacy" section, but I guess there's no problem with that, as long as no other user points it out. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I combined that into a sub section of the reception section. Having 2-3 sentences is not enough for a section in of itself. Paleface Jack (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review - pass

[edit]
I wonder if File:Troika, 1969 film, press release.png's section on NFCC#8 should be capitalized. Regarding File:Trojan Horse, Troika, 1969, press release.png and File:Troika, 1969 film, WWCC Film Festival poster.jpg, in my experience you struggle to satisfy WP:NFCC#8 if your non-free image only illustrates part of the article topic. Not to mention, the latter's rationale is faulty in several points. I worry about File:SFAI.jpg, as it has no EXIF and TinEye says it was used once on http://www.artltdmag.com/index.php?archive&page=show&subaction=1241825259&ucat=18 before it was uploaded to Wikipedia.

#39 and #40 are mistyped. What makes MatchboxCine a reliable source? Same for " Reference Guide to Fantastic Films: Science Fiction, Fantasy, & Horror". I don't think news articles need an ISSN.

The Issn is removed. Refs 39 and 40 are fixed now. I tried looking up some of what you are saying about the image of the University appearing in the site you suggested but have found nothing, not sure what "TinEye" is but I am going to replace it with a better one. As for the press release image, it summarizes the film as promotional material. While the festival poster does have some faults, which I will work on, it is mostly a visual reference of renewed exposure of the film. I not sure how I can use that as a fair rationale. For the Matchbox source, while they are an independent film exhibitor, their screenings are covered frequently in reliable magazines and sources such as Glasgow Times, BFI, Dread Central, etc. For The Reference Guide, I am not sure what you are getting at with that.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just an Update, I chose to bite the bullet and remove the film festival poster.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not particularly clear on what makes " Reference Guide to Fantastic Films: Science Fiction, Fantasy, & Horror" a reliable source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will look into it. Some of these literary sources I find on Google Books are self-published, though this one seemed legit enough. I will see if there is any background on the citation to see if it is as high quality as it needs to be.Paleface Jack (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So looking at the author Walt Lee, I can see he was a film writer, and historian. In his Reference Guide to Fantastic Films, much of that information is compiled by film historian and critic Bill Warren. My only hesitation with the source is that it is admittedly self-published. Although my mixed feelings about the source are on the fence as the authors and people behind the source are well-known academics. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spot-check on this version:
  • 1 OK
  • 2 Doesn't show up on Google Books.
Hm. I just tested it and it does for me.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Google Books pages often show up only to people in particular regions. That's a common hazard when using it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will archive it and see if that will show up for you. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4 Can I have a copy of this page?
how so?--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo means could you email them a copy. (Send them a proforma email, they will reply similarly, and you can then send them copies of the pages in question.) Gog the Mild (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I find the part about Hobbs' own service here, or the one about "Nightmare USA: The Untold Story of the Exploitation Independents". I confess that I find this source hard to read. I notice that at some point you are using the {{rp}} template but otherwise aren't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have since removed the rp template and will send you a better copy of your requested pages. Sorry for their lack of legibility. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Nightmare USA: The Untold Story of the Exploitation Independents" is still not mentioned? The service part is now there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it need to be mentioned again? The part about Hobbs serving is on page 358. The text mentioning it states "Hobbs himself served in the Air Force" and Hobbs' interview with Thrower, he stated "it's an anti-war statement". Paleface Jack (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the mention of Hobbs' service and simplified the sentence. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7 I am not sure what this supports.
The reference supports Hobbs' work up until the film's production.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 9 I am not sure what this supports.
Same as reference #7.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 13 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • 14 Link's broken.
Fixed.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 19 OK
  • 21 Don't see the Rax-in-ghost-town thing,
Corrected to just have the citation to note the sculpture appears in the film.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 25 I am not sure that "crucified" here is sufficient to conclude that the writer is calling Nate Thurmond's character "Christ-like", and the #28 #25 combined reference doesn't seem to be supported by either.
The reference uses the wording "Christ-like".--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 28 Not sure what this supports.
The Cast section lists it.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 30 Don't see "The "Alma Mater" sequence was shot at the San Francisco Art Institute" in here. Likewise, the #21 #30 combined reference doesn't seem to be supported by either.
The reference lists Hillsburough. I think I either messed up or copy edits made and error. I fixed it. The 21 and 30 citations do support that props and items from the film were exhibited.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 31 OK
  • 33 That snippet is missing a lot of information.
I fail to see what information is "Missing" as its all in the info. Please clarify--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dandelion and double feature aren't mentioned and the JSTOR is broken. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is weird. The Jstor number is correct: https://www.jstor.org/stable/community.28039862 Paleface Jack (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, switched things so they fit the source. Paleface Jack (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is Dandelion mentioned in the JSTOR? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dandelion was mentioned in the Los Angeles Free Press source. The source itself is an advertisement of the film. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 36 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • 37 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • 38 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • 40 OK for part of this.
Which portion is not ok?--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing this source supports is that the film has a copy at Berkeley. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok. The Thrower and recent Glasgow Times might be better for that particular blurb then. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over everything. There seems to be no other place this film is stored at. Paleface Jack (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note to the coordinaters, keep this thread review open for a week or two while Jo-Jo reviews the requested sources.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now only 13 and 36-38 are pending. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Updated citations 36-38. I unfortunately had to remove citation 13 as i was unable to find a copy of the source anywhere. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I belatedly remembered that I didn't get #2. Neither 7 nor 8 nor 9 say "avant-garde" as far as I can see. I notice that the plot summaries aren't cited, but I figure that the film itself works well enough as a source for these things - save for "Abandoning the conventional narrative structure, Troika consists of an introductory story and three parts, each told in differing narrative styles" which needs independent sourcing. That's all what's left from what I can see. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could have sworn I emailed you a screenshot of #2. I will resend it. As for 7-9, I changed the wording to fit with the source's description, removing avante-garde completely. Paleface Jack (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, received it. That seems like it wraps up the review. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your time and patience, my friend. Paleface Jack (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Troika_(1969_film)/archive2&oldid=1245768308"