Talk:Let's All Go to the Lobby/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Reidgreg (talk · contribs) 14:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Review to be forthcoming. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I've done some light copy edit and MOS cleanup on the article; if you disagree with any of that, feel free to revert and we can discuss it as part of the review. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Criterion

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Lead will need to be reworked after other issues addressed

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Small amount of uncited information

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I've suggested some expansions and material to remove.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Needs some work but should be able to meet GA criteria

Review comments

Referencing & verifiability

• "Eagan"
  • verified 15 citations to source(mostly)
  • from left to right: candy bar, popcorn, candy, and a soft drink The source identifies them as gum, popcorn, candy and soda. From the image, I can read "Candy" on the one between the popcorn and soda, but can't make out what it says on the sash worn by the blue rectangular box. Library of Congress and Eagan call it gum, Chicago Tribune calls it a candy bar. I would suggest calling it chewing gum (less ambiguous) and using a footnote to discuss the disagreement by sources if you feel that's important. Done I added citations to the footnote and did a little cleanup around the end notes.
• Komorovski essay
• LOC listing and "Names 25 More Films"
• "Valentine"
  • I could get some previews of this book, but not sure which pages to check. It is good for the increased concession sales in the 1950s (page 137) which I believe was the main reference needed.
• Filmack catalog – AGF for offline source, used for simple date verification. The next one that reads "Original prints are Kodak date coded 1953" could itself use a source, or possibly be moved into a non-reference footnote (using the prints themselves as a primary source, assuming the date code is not too cryptic that there's a chance of misinterpretation).
  • Source and statement removed.
• blog.sva.edu
  • Primary source. I've added Adweek as another source for notability.
• Weho Times
  • In 2019, The LEGO Movie 2: The Second Part made a reference to this short film, re-enacting it with different characters and a different ending. In this footage, Systar System inhabitants Banarnar, Ice Cream Cone, and Chocolate Bar are singing the song until one of them gets attacked by Princess Unikitty. The source verifies the first clause of the first sentence only.
    • Unsourced material removed.
• The last paragraph of Legacy (re: Cartoon Network/Infinity train) is unsourced.
  • Unsourced material removed.
• Earwig found that this autogenerated Youtube channel copies the lead of the article. That's their copyvio, not ours (and it is plagiarism on their part as they do not attribute it to Wikipedia).

Breadth & focus

I think there's some basic difficulty with the structure of the article. Suggest changing: Background and history → Background and production (the whole article is history) or Historical context and production, and to include Reception as its own section or framed to fit with Content or Legacy.

Background/Content:

• The first paragraph of Content is still describing the medium, and I think it would fit better if worked into Background and history. I would suggest removing the sentence According to film historian Scott Simmon, the history of advertising films begins with Admiral Cigarette (1897) by William Heise. ( Confirmed) which is straying off topic, and then move the rest of the paragraph in after the second sentence of the first paragraph of Background as follows:

  The Chicago-based Filmack Studios, originally known as Filmack Trailer Company, was founded in 1919 by Irving Mack. The company specialized in the production of newsreels and promotional material for theaters. A short film of this type is known as a snipe, which is defined as material broadcast in displayed on a projection screen without being part of the featured presentation. This definition includes advertising material, previews of coming attractions, courtesy requests for the audience, and notices concerning the concession stand of the movie theater. By the 1950s, the sales of the concession stands represented a significant portion of movie theaters' revenue. Filmack commissioned a series of Technicolor trailers aimed at informing audiences about a theater's newly installed concession stand. Let's All Go to the Lobby was one of these films. Done

Content:

• Eagan notes that the complete film comprises six shots (a lot of YouTube videos only have three of these). Suggest adding this to the second paragraph and reworking as:

  The film consists of six shots. The most recognizable of these depicts four animated food items (from left to right: candy bar, popcorn, candy, and a soft drink) singing and walking leftwards. In the foreground before these characters are silhouettes of audience members, creating an illusion of depth, a standard technique of the medium. In a later shot, a group of four consumers are depicted enjoying their purchased food items. Done

• Consider adding to the end of the third paragraph:

  The lyrics were composed by Jack Tillar.

  Added, but in a different location.

Legacy:

• I feel that the Legacy section goes into too much detail with singular examples and largely misses the big picture. The National Film Registry listing, which is arguably the most notable, is entirely absent. I feel that this should be rewritten with expansions. Suggest:

  Filmack has continued selling copies in the decades since its production. The company estimates that 80% of independent theaters in the United States have screened the film, and it is likely the most-viewed snipe. In 2000, Let's All Go to the Lobby was selected for preservation in the National Film Registry (NFR) by the US Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant". Partly done

  Animation historian Thad Komorowski noted that while the animation is "downright primitive" by the standards of the 1950s, it "outlast[ed] any other trailer of its kind". John Owens of The Chicago Tribune called it "one of the most iconic movies in American cinema history". Dan Eagan, who wrote a comprehensive guide to NFR titles, called it "a cultural touchstone" and an inherent part of the American theatre experience of the 1950s and 1960s. Not done

  The clip of the singing concessions has frequently been parodied in advertisements of the 2000s. These include a 2006 spot for Chipotle Mexican Grill where a burrito attempts to join the characters, a 2011 spot for the Tribeca Film Festival where the characters are mobsters voiced by the cast of The Sopranos, and a 2013 GEICO commercial where the characters are chided for speaking on their cell phones. It has also been spoofed in popular entertainment including Late Show with David Letterman, The Simpsons, and The LEGO Movie 2, and appears in fictional depictions of theaters. Lionsgate produced a quarantine-themed version of the snipe to accompany special presentations of films streamed online during the COVID-19 pandemic. Done but without removing the material it is meant to replace.

  The first paragraph above was added, with some qualifiers trimmed (i.e.: in the United States, (NFR) US Library of Congress. Second paragraph not used. Third paragraph was used at the bottom of popular culture.

  I feel that the second paragraph is important to give some critical opinions of the importance of the piece. When available, we should always try to have some review or reception material for any film or other artwork.

Prose

Here are a few places that could be improved. I'll likely have more to recommend after changes are made.

• In line with MOS:LEADSENTENCE, I feel that the first sentence of the lead should establish the very basic points of the subject to set context for what follows. Suggest: Let's All Go to the Lobby is an American animated musical advertisement that was produced in the mid-1950s for Filmack Studios. Partly done will address lead after other changes.
• Specific details for his involvement are lacking, and the rest of the production crew remains unknown. Production may have started by 1953, but Robbie Mack (a later owner of Filmack) estimates it was completed c. 1955. The release date is typically estimated to 1957. The original production records are considered lost. Filmack sold to various theater owners the right to use the film, which it still owns. Start with the big general points and then add more detail: Specific details for his involvement are lacking, and the original production records are considered lost with other production crew unknown. Production may have started by 1953, but Robbie Mack (a later owner of Filmack) estimates it was completed c. 1955. The release date is typically estimated to 1957. Filmack sold to various theater owners the right to use the film, which it still owns. Not done
• The film is technically known as a snipe, which is defined as material broadcast in a projection screen without being part of the featured presentation. Change: broadcast in → displayed on
• This definition includes can strike definition which the reader can assume through ellipsis.
• the creators of the film managed to avoid using brand names I feel like there's a slight tone issue with managed. I think it could also link to a more-specific target. How about changing this to: the creators of the film avoided using brand names
• before it turns out the concession stand is actually a monster → before it is revealed that the concession stand is actually a monster (if this is kept)
  • Unsourced material removed

References

Media

One image with fair use rationale.

Other areas to improve

Although not part of the GA criteria, here are some other areas you might want to improve:

• Consider whether Template:Infobox advertising might be a better choice for the article.
• I personally feel that there don't have to be so many inline citations to Eagan, but it's fine for GA.

General discussion

I've tried to recommend solutions to the issues I've found, and I'm pretty sure this can meet the GA criteria with a little additional work. Please reply here (or above) for any discussion or questions. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Koridas: No replies here, but it's been more than seven days so I'm going to start checking for changes to the article and see how it has progressed toward meeting the GA criteria. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Koridas: It looks like you made about half of the changes that I suggested. The other half you didn't make the changes or state any reason for why you disagree. I'm just another editor, some of the things I've suggested might not be the best thing for the article. But the only way we can agree about what's best is through discussion. I marked some of the outstanding issues above as 'not done' or 'partly done' and look forward to hearing from you. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Reidgreg, I did some editing now, and I would like to know how far I've progressed through the changes you requested. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 17:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Koridas: It's getting there. There are two points above marked with  Not done; the first of these is more important. Again, I'm open to discussion if you disagree with my suggestions. Then we can maybe move some things around for layout (to keep it focused, so related material is together, and remove some redundancies), and then some additional prose work and tackle the lead (it's easier to deal with the lead after the body of the article is good). – Reidgreg (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Although I feel that this could easily meet the GA criteria, I'm failing the review after waiting three weeks without some of my suggestions being either implemented or discussed. The holdout points are (in order of importance): (2c) possible original research in some of the uncited statements; (3a) breadth, lacking broad critical coverage of the film and its cultural impact; (3b) focus, with repetition in the popular culture section; (1b) a comprehensive lead which summarizes the article content; and (1a) some prose work for cohesion and flow. I feel that it's a shame to fail this, but I can't leave it open indefinitely. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by DavidWBrooks

@DavidWBrooks: Thanks for your interest in improving this article. As the article is undergoing GAN review, could you please discuss changes here instead of editing the article directly? Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 11:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)