Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bride of Frankenstein

Add links
Source: 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 SandyGeorgia 01:08, 4 March 2009 [1].

Bride of Frankenstein

Nominator(s): Otto4711 (talk)
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for featured article because I am a glutton for abuse and punishment and no one doles it out better than FA reviewers! ;-) Seriously, I believe that the article meets the FA criteria. Frequently cited as the best gothic horror film ever made and as James Whale's directorial masterpiece, this is a touchstone in American film history. The article was nominated once previously but was never evaluated as I had nominated two articles at the same time. Many thanks to the various editors who reviewed the article for GA and at peer review in preparation for this nomination. Otto4711 (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Current ref 22 (newman?) is a big red error message.
  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper. Same goes for magazines/journals.
  • You need retrieved on dates for all your web sites.
  • Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original.
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference tag closed, now ref 7.
  • Titles italicized, except for CNN since it's a network and not a newspaper. Some helpful soul "fixed" the references before, changing "work" to "publisher", without my noticing.
Love that when it happens... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No idea what the actual date was on that one cite but it's still live so I just put today.
That's perfectly okay. The idea is that if the link goes dead, you have a date to figure out when it was live, and it also shows you what revision was used in case they change the page. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The lead needs cleanup. The first sentence is very abrupt, as are several throughout the article. Avoid easter egg links; if you are linking to the original novel, write it out properly. There's too much detail on the plot elements from the book that the film drew from, especially since the lead spends more time on it than the article body itself. Simply state the film was inspired by the book and then describe what happens in the movie.
  • The plot summary could use a great deal of trimming. Stick to the basics; enough to give readers context and understanding, but not so much that I feel like I've just seen the entire movie.
  • Although you might not able to address this, there's an imbalance between the amount of text devoted to preproduction and to production (only a paragraph!).
  • Place the Academy Award nomination after the initial reviews of the film
  • Did The New York Times review the film. If you haven't already, search their website archive.
  • I suggest placing "Christian imagery" and "Homosexual interpretations" under an overarching "Themes and imagery" section. You can still have them placed under their own subheadings. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the plot summary, I believe that its current length and level of detail are on par with featured film articles such as Jaws (film) and Jurassic Park (film). Is there some reason you want NYT's review specifically? Otto4711 (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • NYT is the country's newspaper of record, so if they reviewed the film, it would be essential to add the review. You still should trim down the plot summary; there's too many specifics. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • NYT review information added. Otto4711 (talk) 02:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead re-worked. Academy Award information moved. Otto4711 (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The plot summary is 815 words. I've checked about a half dozen featured articles and their plot summaries run anywhere from 725 to just under 1100 words. Otto4711 (talk) 07:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, according to WP:FILMPLOT, film articles plots should be between 400 and 700 words max and should not exceed 900 for the record. By a word count, the article's plot is currently 842 words long. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In coming up with your count did you subtract out the actors' names?
  • It's 814 without actor's name. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes: the article has a mixture of incorrect hyphens (that should be endashes), and spaced endashes and unspaced emdashes. Please make consistent per WP:DASH. Also, per WP:ELLIPSES, ellipses need spaces. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am thoroughly confused by this comment. Here you say that spaces are not used with em-dashes. Now you're saying that unspaced em-dashes are wrong? Which is it please? Otto4711 (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I'm saying you have a mixture of spaced endashes and unspaced emdashes (as well as some hyphens that should be dashes). See WP:DASH; you should use one or the other. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sandy, I don't know if you will be reading this or not, but the only em dashes present are from direct quotations. The acutal prose of the article uses spaced en dashes. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is the cast section even necessary? It's just a listing of the actor and the character names, which are also in the plot. If you just include the actor names next to their respective characters in the plot, you can get rid of a section that seems to be doing nothing more than taking up space.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't care whether there's a separate cast section or not. It seems standard to include it but if it's removed that's fine with me. Otto4711 (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The poster doesn't have a source. All non-free images must be sourced outside of Wikipedia. The other image is fine. From the "Christian Imagery" section, this--"by inverting the central Christian myth of the death of Christ followed by the resurrection. The Monster is raised from the dead first, then crucified."--is not sourced. Also, you don't need to source every single sentence in one paragraph if all of the information came from the same source. Just source the last statement, indicating that the whole paragraph (or group of sentences) is from that source. Usually this is pretty clear, as you'll see that the statement is all about the same thing, so there typically isn't confusion about sourcing the "middle sentence" from a set of sentences from the same source. In the "Homosexual" section, this--"particularly embodied in the character of Pretorius and his relationship with Henry."--doesn't appear to be sourced. Another issue, you have issues with quotes and identifiers. This--"Whale's companion David Lewis stated flatly that Whale's sexual orientation was "not germane" to his filmmaking. "Jimmy was first and foremost an artist, and his films represent the work of an artist—not a gay artist, but an artist.""--has a quoted sentence at the end. Is this coming from the same guy, or someone else? If you say, "John stated "I hate ice-cream.", then a comma should follow "stated". A good copyedit needs to be done here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding is that each direct quote needs its own reference, which is why there are multiple references in the Xian imagery section. The reference to the glowing crucifix is there because the next reference is to a different source. Another reference added to cover the last sentence of that section. The poster (which I did not upload) has a source where the image may be found, but I have no idea if it's the actual location from which the image was taken. The bit about Pretorius is sourced in the actual discussion of the character and his relationship to Henry in the subsequent paragraph. Otto4711 (talk) 04:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another example. You have--"Rather, the Monster is a "mockery of the divine"[3] since, having been created by Man rather than God, it "lacks the divine spark".[3]"--you've listed the same source in the same sentence twice. It should always follow the punctuation, and if you're going twice in the same sentence then it should just come at the end of the entire sentence. Another--"In crucifying the Monster, he says, Whale "pushes the audience's buttons"[3] by inverting the central Christian myth of the death of Christ followed by the resurrection."--The source should follow the nearest punctuation (or end of the sentence if it's the same source throughout. If you have information in one paragraph that isn't sourced until the next paragraph, then it either needs to be in the next paragraph or the source needs to be in both places. Since the poster isn't the soundtrack cover, it isn't good to use it. Here is a source for one of the posters, but it would require you to upload this version over the current version.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so just to be clear, despite what I've been told in every other GA and FA review, I don't have to have a citation immediately following every direct quote? Otto4711 (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You do and you don't. I've never seen anyone suggest that a citation must interrupt a sentence and be placed exactly beside the quoted text. It should always be present, but generally it comes after a punctuation (like a comma or a period). Even then, if you're quoting the same guy twice, in a compound sentence, I've never seen it suggested that you cite the source twice if it's all one source. I've never written any article that way, and that includes both Jason Voorhees and Smallville (season 1) (two FA articles with lots of quotes from one source).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is where I was instructed to cite each piece of quoted material, under the theory that should the quoted text be relocated at some point and moved away from the blanket citation the citation would be lost for the relocated comment. Looking at Bride now, is the referencing adequate for all quoted text? Otto4711 (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever gave you that theory...I control myself to use the term idiotic. If you have an entire paragraph from one source, you're clearly identifying the sayer of the quote (i.e. Karloff said, "..."), and the source is listed at the end of the paragraph then there is no way for you to lose said source should that quote get moved. If that happens, then it is because someone was too lazy to copy the citation that was at the end of the paragraph when they moved the quoted text. Ridiculous. Wikipedia:Inline citation discusses this, and for the Harvard/Wikipedia section it says "following punctuation" (so, should someone come to this article and say, "that isn't directly beside the quote", you can say "it's where it is supposed to be per the Harvard rule"). This apparently seems to contradict WP:Citing Sources. Although the former is an essay, and the latter a guideline, I don't see where WP:CS is actually quoting a formal guide for this statement (i.e. Harvard Rule, APA, etc.). I'm going to ask them about this, because this is the first time that I've seen someone actually claim it "must" be directly after the quote.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a. Wow, interesting read! It's pretty good, but not up to par yet to meet 1a. I listed some representative issues below, but ideally this should have a solid hour with a good copyeditor. The big problem is the Plot section. I'm gonna watch this now, though, for sure.
    • "... although a number of Whale's associates dismissed the idea." Can we replace "a number of" to "some of"? Pet peeve :)
    • "The scene shifts to the moments at the end of Frankenstein." Okay, so I am confused about whether you are writing about the film or the novel. In the lead, you said this film is a sequel to Frankenstein the film, but rooted in subplot of the novel. We have to be really clear about which we are writing about. I thought you would be talking about the novel since you are mentioning Shelley, but you are clearly not because what you go on to describe is not what happens at the end of the novel.
      • Added the year of the first film.
    • By the second paragraph, you've written "the Monster", "the monster", and "the creature". There needs to be consistency here. Is he officially called "the Monster" in the film? Most literary criticism of Frankenstein the novel calls it "the creature".
      • Unless I'm cock-eyed from reading this thing a million times, I see one instance of "monster" and one instance of "creature". I have capitalized "Monster" but I don't think one instance of the word "creature" is a problem, any more than for example calling R2D2 and C3PO "the droids" would be. The character is called "The Monster" in the credits.
    • The whole plot section is very start-stop-start-stop with the stubby sentences and concise rehash of the plot. The readability is low and the prose is not compelling.
      • OK, so I have one person telling me that the plot summary is overly detailed and another telling me that it's too concise. No way to reconcile these two critiques.
        • The plot's readability comes in anywhere from high school freshman to high school junior. Isn't that about what we're supposed to shoot for, high school level English? Otto4711 (talk) 03:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maybe I'm just vain but the plot reads as compellingly to me as does that of for example Jaws (film). I can't really work with "not compelling". I need examples. Are there word choices you don't like? Are there sentences you think should be structured differently? Otto4711 (talk) 03:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I didn't mean the plot section is too concise, I meant the sentences are too concise. They are choppy. There is too much "This happened. Then this happened. Then this happened." if you know what I mean. "Compelling" is a bugger because it's difficult to call a particular sentence out to answer for it. It doesn't flow well and I think it could really benefit from a fresh pair of eyes. --Laser brain (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • OK, I re-worked it again. See if you think it's less choppy. Otto4711 (talk) 04:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The studio had considered the idea of making a sequel to Frankenstein as early as the preview screenings of the film ..." Ungrammatical. "[A]s early as ..." wants a time, but you provide "the preview screenings of the film" which is ambiguous.
      • Added the year of the first film.
    • "... following the changing of the original ending" Ending of the film or the novel?
      • Added "film's" although it seems pretty obvious that the studio couldn't change the novel.
    • "Following the success of Whale's The Invisible Man, producer Carl Laemmle, Jr. realized that Whale was the only possible director for Bride, which Whale used as leverage ..." Poorly worded—maybe "... a realization Whale used as leverage"
      • Changed to "Whale used this realization". Otto4711 (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Laser brain (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments (leaning towards support, from Ruhrfisch) Generally looks good, here are some nitpicks and I will make a few copyedits. I will make some initial comments now and add more later.

Resolved comments from Ruhrfisch
  • Would it be clearer in the lead to phrase Elsa Lanchester as his Mate and Mary Shelley as something like Elsa Lanchester in a dual role as the Monster's Mate and Mary Shelley?
  • Also in the lead, would this be clearer When the Bride rejects him, the Monster dejectedly destroys Henry's laboratory, killing Pretorius, the Bride and apparently himself.?
  • Since it took 4 years from the release of the first film to this one, this sentence in the lead seems a bit misleading Preparation for the sequel commenced shortly after the first film premiered. Perhaps something like Although preparation for the sequel commenced shortly after the first film premiered, script and other problems delayed the start of production until 1934. would be clearer (guessed on the year - not clear when filming began)
  • I agree the plot section could be tightened a bit. Just in the first paragraph, what do you think of something like In the prologue, Percy Bysshe Shelley (Douglas Walton) and Lord Byron (Gavin Gordon) praise Mary Shelley (Elsa Lanchester) for her story of Frankenstein and his Monster. Mary reminds them that she wrote her tale to impart a moral lesson, and has more of the story to tell. The scene shifts to the moments at the end of the 1931 Frankenstein. I think this is the same basic infomration, but more succinct.
  • Why in the plot section is it just "(Karloff)", when all the other actors are listed with first and last names (and he is referred to as Boris Karloff in the lead)?
  • Unclear sentence (need to make it clearer sooner that Henry is thought dead) Henry is returned to his ancestral castle home and his fiancée Elizabeth (Valerie Hobson) has his body brought inside. Perhaps Henry's body is returned to his fiancée Elizabeth (Valerie Hobson) at his ancestral castle.

More later, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Various changes made per your suggestions, not exact but see what you think. It's "Karloff" in the plot summary because that's how he's credited in the picture and my understanding is that such notations should follow what's on-screen. Plot summary is 714 words; not really seeing what else can go. Otto4711 (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More comments The changes look good for the most part - thanks. Here are the rest of my nit picks.

  • I understand your explanation of Karloff vs Boris Karloff (and it is addressed in the Production section where it says he was credited as just "KARLOFF"), but the article is not consistent on this point. I am OK with calling him either name, but think it should be consistent.
  • Changed in plot section.
  • I am not sure if I understand what this sentence means The studio had considered the idea of making a sequel to Frankenstein as early as the 1931 preview screenings of the film, following the changing of the film's original ending to allow for Henry Frankenstein's survival. It seems to imply they changed the ending (Henry survives) to allow a sequel (at least that makes sense) but it doesn't really read that way. If that is what is meant I think it would read better as The studio had considered the idea of making a sequel to Frankenstein as early as the 1931 preview screenings of the film, and changed the film's original ending to allow for Henry Frankenstein's survival. If that is not what happened, I am not sure what the sentence means. Why was the ending changed?
  • Changed.
  • Would it be better to formulate opined that it "[stank] to heaven".[5] as opined that it stank "to heaven".[5]?
  • The full quote is "They've had a script made for a sequel and it stinks to heaven." The article now reads . The script passed the Hays office review but Whale, who by then had been attached to direct, said of this script, "it stinks to heaven".
  • Unclear antecedent could be cleared up as In the novel Frankenstein creates a mate but destroys it without bringing it to life. He [Balderston] also created the Mary Shelley prologue.
  • Changed.
  • Would this be clearer Because of Mae Clarke's ill health, Valerie Hobson replaced her as Henry Frankenstein's love interest, Elizabeth.[3]?
  • Changed.
  • The phrase "is sprung" seems awkward, would this be better should also play Mary Shelley in the film's prologue, to represent how the story – and horror in general – is sprung [springs] from the dark side of one's imagination.[10]?
  • Changed. I didn't write that bit.
  • Would this flow better? Lanchester modeled the Bride's hissing, which Whale filmed at different angles to choose from later, on the hissing of swans. She gave herself a sore throat filming the shot of her hissing and took codeine to relieve the pain.[12]

Now reads Lanchester modeled the Bride's hissing on the hissing of swans. Whale filmed the hissing sequence from multiple angles and Lanchester gave herself a sore throat, which she treated with codeine. I didn't write that bit either.

  • I am hopeless on dashes, but they should be consistent in Breen offered no objection to the cruciform imagery throughout the film – including a scene with the Monster lashed Christ-like to a pole–nor to the presentation of Pretorius as a coded homosexual.[25] Is it word space dash space word, or just word dash word?
  • Hell if I know. Next to images, dash policy is the most arcane thing on this project. Rarely have I met anyone who can tell a hyphen from an en-dash while reading an article but woe betide anyone who has one out of place! Anyway, I fixed this to a spaced en-dash which I believe is correct.
  • I think it would be useful to identify who lauded it in the film is lauded as "the finest of all gothic horror movies".[39]
  • Is there a missing verb here? to pull Frankenstein away from his bride on their wedding night to engage in the unnatural act of [making? creating?] non-procreative life.
  • I think it can be read either with or without the verb but I added the verb anyway.
  • The last point I have is to wonder if would make sense to have a paragraph on the film's legacy, probably at the end of the reception section? For example, no mention is made of the sequel (with Karloff, though not Whale or others). The line "gods and monsters" became the title of a bio-pic about Whale. The Bride is onscreen relatively little, but is an almost instantly recognizable figure, much imitated and parodied. Would it make sense to add something like that?

I hope this helps, well done over all. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding the section for the final paragraph, I'm not sure that a separate paragraph is warranted (and I actively loathe anything that even smacks of "In popular culture" sections) but additional information could certainly be added to existing paragraphs to flesh this out. I do say in the production section that the Bride and her hairdo have become icons so that does address that aspect of your suggestion. I would strongly oppose anything that is or would lend itself to a list of parodies or list of appearances of the Bride's image or anything like that. Such sections rarely if ever add value to an article IMHO and tend to draw original research like flies. The article contains a "See also" link to the film Gods and Monsters; I'm wondering if adding a note there that the title was drawn from this film would suffice?
  • Do you think adding an image of Karloff from the first film, howing the differences in makeup (especially the sunken cheeks) would be appropriate or is that just going to open up another can of worms? Otto4711 (talk) 05:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • One other thing regarding the sequel. There were no immediate plans for another sequel because the first Universal horror cycle ended in 1936 after Dracula's Daughter. The Laemmles lost control of the studio and the new bosses shut down horror production. Son of Frankenstein (1939) was made after the original Frankenstein and Lugosi's Dracula were re-released. Bride wasn't re-released in the US until IIRC 1947 so it had no direct impact on the decision to make Son. I can certainly add that but it seems like it's getting a bit off-track. Otto4711 (talk) 05:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny story about the re-release. Supposedly Whale took some friends to see it. He sat through the whole thing chuckling, and finally an enraged lady patron turned around and said "If you don't like the picture then you can get the hell out!" Otto4711 (talk) 05:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed to support as all of my major concerns have been addressed, here are a few more comments / replies. I am OK with the current note on the iconic nature of the Bride character. I think adding a sentence on the sequel would be useful, if only to say something like Universal's next film in the series, Son of Frankenstein (1939), was made with a different director and cast, except for Karloff, who portrayed the Monster for the final time. Not sure if you want to work in the change of studio heads etc. I think adding a note to the See also links might be useful not only for the Gods and Monsters film, but perhaps also for The Bride. I looked at the articles on the other Universal films with Frankenstein's monster and it seems that the Bride does not appear in any of them. Perhaps a sentence along the lines of Although the Monster would appear in six more Universal films, this was the Bride's only such appearance. would help? Since this is the article about the film, the rerelease should probably be in there too - I like the Whale laughing through his own movie story, not sure if it should be in the article though. Finally, while I like the idea of side by side pictures of the 1931 and 1935 Monsters, I am not sure it would be OK under WP:NFCC. I did look at File:Frankenstein Karloff.jpg and he is definitely more cadaverous / gaunt. I can imagine the counter argument being made that the mental image of more gaunt Monster is fairly clear from the description already in the article. Perhaps see what consensus among other reviwewers here is? For the record I would support it, but it is not absolutely required. Anyway, I am glad to support now and wanted to say I enjoyed reading the article and learned a lot from it. Well done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I did not collapse my comments and made three specific suggestions in them which have not yet been addressed. SInce this is a film, I think the sequel should be mentioned in a sentence. I would also mention the first re-release of the film. Finally, it seems from reading the other articles that although the monster appeared in 6 or so more Universal studios films, the Bride did not and I wondered if this was worth mentioning. I already supported, so these are just ideas, but I think they deserve some sort of response. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - I was going to oppose the page, but some things I have issue with are personal issues, while others are not (but the others are easily mended). I still think a good copy edit from someone familiar with the various MOSs should happen. Just as example, I saw EMdashes with spaces. Per WP:EMDASH, if you're using an EMdash to enclose a phrase then you do not put spaces. I also see heavy quoting in both the plot and the reception section. The bits of dialogue from the film are unnecessary. People can watch the movie for that level of detail. More importantly, this is an issue with the reception section. Wikipedia shouldn't simple be a copy/paste job from sources. It should summarize and paraphrase what others have said. It seems that each of those reviews are basically just paragraphs of quoted text. If you have enough awards, it might be better to separated the Reception into two subsections (Awards and Critical Reception), if not, the awards mentioning in the middle of the reception info seems misplaced. You should keep it all with the recognitions, instead of tacking it on after a review. Another issue is with size of paragraphs. Two and three sentence paragraphs are weak, and should generally be avoided. You should really merge some of those thin paragraphs into others so that they will be stronger as a result (there's not a lot: some in the plot section and one or two in the other sections).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that the only spaced em dashes are in quotes. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi, just dropping in to let you know that per WP:MOSQUOTE, allowable changes to quoted passages include making dashes consistent with the rest of the article. Steve T • C 08:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Excellent writing and sourcing. Overall nice-looking article. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Dabs look good. Check the toolbox, there is one dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All links are live. Otto4711 (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, must be one of those temporary things. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I like it very much. Just some qualms:
1. Can you put some note under plot for a reference/citation?
2. "Elsa Lanchester is credited for Mary Shelley, but in a nod to the earlier film, the Monster's bride is credited only as "?" just as Boris Karloff had been in the opening credits of Frankenstein." <-- Source? Just a need :)
3. Do you have any images for "Christian imagery" or "Homosexual interpretations"? They are really good section and images would be a nice boost to understand it better :).
4. Also one for the plot ;)

Good job though. :) I really like the effort in this. Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 22:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the plot image, rarely is there critical commentary (requirement of non-free images) in the plot itself that would allow an image.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The two films' credits sequences serve as sourcing as anyone can watch the films for confirmation. Similarly the film itself serves as a source for the plot per WP:PSTS. Is there something specific that you believe needs sourcing within that section? I could certainly add an image to one or both of the the interp sections but I wonder if they would significantly contribute to understanding. The logical choices would be screen shots but I doubt there's anything that an image could illustrate that text doesn't. The Monster trussed to a pole, the Monster and the hermit together or an image of Pretorius, all can be described. What do other reviewers think? Otto4711 (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are already two images each of the Monster and of the Bride. I doubt another image of the Monster would be OK under WP:NFCC. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To share my $0.02, I do not think we need a screenshot for the interpretations section. There is no specific scene to show or any particular screenshot that would illustrate the commentary in this section. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review as follows:

  • File:Brideoffrankposter.jpg — "arguably one of the most important images" is not a particularly good rationale if the intention is to use this poster for identification. Something more along the line of how this poster was one of the main advertising vehicles, and readily identifiable media associated with the film would better serve as the rationale for this as an identifying image for the subject. On the other hand, I am wondering if this poster was copyrighted in the first place, or if so was renewed during 1962–63... if not, this would be in the public domain... Unfortunately, renewed.[2]
  • File:Brideoffrankenstein.jpg — I do not think the standard templates do well to establish strong fair use rationales. In this case, the rationale should explain why this image is used. Based on the text and commentary, it should be along the lines that the distinctive hairdo of the bride, which has become an iconic image of the film, cannot be fully described with words alone, and the picture serves to aid the reader's understanding. A lesser rationale (which on its own would not suffice) that the picture serve to illustrate the full comestics of the two main monster characters could also be included.

The above should be fairly simple to resolve. Jappalang (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend setting up the poster image to be like File:Fight Club poster.jpg. Poster images are acceptable as "cover art" per WP:NFC#Images, like it is acceptable to have cover images for books and albums. For the screenshot, I agree that it could specify the rationale as it is reflected in the article body. I suggest using {{Non-free use rationale}} and maybe following File:Fight Club cigarette burn.jpg. —Erik (talk • contrib) 02:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are any of the editors going to strengthen the rationales of the images? Jappalang (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried updating both image fair use rationales per your comments (and a few ideas of my own for the poster). Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I edited a bit and added the trademark templates (forgot that the two are trademarked as Universal Studios Monsters). Image issues are resolved. Jappalang (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My oppose is based mainly on feeling that the prose needs another pass. I've made some example edits to remove redundant wording and to clarify a couple of points; I'm happy to explain the reasons for any you may disagree with. Another example is this edit, which changed a slightly lumpy sentence into something cleaner—without losing any of the intended meaning (and others might argue it could still stand swapping out that "as early as"). As others have suggested, a further copy edit may be in order, perhaps by someone unfamiliar with the article. I know, I recently went back to an article of mine that I hadn't looked at properly for a few weeks—one I thought was wonderfully written—only to immediately notice dozens of glaring, clunky phrases. Still, a good, interesting read. All the best, Steve T • C 11:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect, these changes strike me as being more along the lines of personal preference rather than indicative of any actual problems with the prose. Otto4711 (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've got me questioning myself now. I don't think it is personal preference; for me, they make it smoother, and therefore more pleasurable, to read. Still, I'm willing to admit being wrong, so let's have a look at one of the examples:

    The studio had considered the idea of making a sequel to Frankenstein as early as the 1931 preview screenings of the film.

    To me, that seems clunky. The "of the film" is especially superfluous, seeming to drag the sentence out past its welcome. Reading that, immediately the redundant words stood out, almost as if in boldface:

    The studio had considered 'the idea of making a sequel to Frankenstein as early as the its 1931 preview screenings of the film.

    Now look at:

    The studio considered making a sequel to Frankenstein as early as its 1931 preview screenings.

    Are you sure you don't think this reads smoother? None of the meaning is lost, yet to me it is cleaner, more precise (with the caveat I mention above). A third opinion may help here. Steve T • C 22:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, it looks like this discussion may be in danger of stalling. Are you content with your initial response to my oppose? If so, I'd be happy to solicit the opinion of a third-party. It might be worth contacting Laser brain for 1) a revisit to see whether his/her prose concerns have been addressed, and 2) an opinion on whether he/she feels my concerns are overly-picky. Steve T • C 09:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) No. 2) No. Otto4711 fixed the issues I listed but disregarded and then archived my request to have the article independently copyedited. Most grammar issues are subjective. Prose can be correct but not brilliant and compelling, which is criterion 1a. You are perfectly justified in making such suggestions. --Laser brain (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you still have problems with the prose, can you give an example or two of the kind of thing you're objecting to? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've struck my oppose thanks to the recent copy edit. All the best, Steve T • C 00:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think this is a good read and well written after the copyediting that's been done to it. I'd like to see one thing cleared up though. In the Production section the final cost is given as $397,023, yet the first sentence of Reception says "... to date the film had earned approximately $2 million for the studio, roughly double its production costs." Doesn't seem to add up. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reviewing the source again I'm not sure where the "roughly double" figure is coming from. I'll update the article. Otto4711 (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... with a projected budget of US$293,750 ($4.61 million today) – almost ...

What does "today" refer to? It will become dated. Does it want to be "as of 2009"? "As of 2008"? What is the precise date? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's no problem. It's a fairly new template, see {{Inflation}}. Today really does mean today, automatically updated. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Thanks, Malleus. In other words, the template constantly updates, regardless of the date? So, I should revert my changes? (I think the template should reflect the current date, then, rather than today.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the not unreasonable assumption behind the template is that "today" is the date you're actually reading the article. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... which raises a question mark in my mind over the CD versions of wikipedia. Still, that's not our problem at FAC thankfully. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've reverted myself, but I hope someone will take on the task of getting that template fixed to conform with Precise language (it should at least say "as of March 2009" or something more precise). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The template doesn't need fixing; I've just combined it with {{CURRENTISOYEAR}} as in [3]. What do you think? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much more precise ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 4 March 2009 (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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Bride_of_Frankenstein&oldid=1088824091"