User talk:Jm307

Welcome!

Hello Jm307, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! RJFJR 20:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marx Brothers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Animal Crackers.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Animal Crackers (1930 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hello, I Must Be Going.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Crackers GA nomination

I did a quick glance at your GA nomination for Animal Crackers, while you are on the right track, there are problems. There are portions that are completely unsourced and require attention. The music section is underdeveloped as well and should be expanded in a paragraph format, not a list format. Good start though. Paleface Jack (talk) 01:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look! I'm happy to add some supporting text to the music section, although I thought that it was okay for a list of songs in a musical to appear like that? Also, can you give me a pointer to which portions are unsourced? I know the plot and the lead are unsourced, but my interpretation of MOS:PLOTSOURCE was that plots don't need sources, and my interpretation of MOS:LEAD was that leads didn't have to have sources as long as the relevant sources occur in the body. Thanks again! Jm307 (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plot does not need citations normally and the lead is a summary of the article as a whole. Information in sections like Production, Themes, Release, Reception and legacy always needs to be sourced. The Manual of Style for film is a good resource in what is expected but not set in stone. Familiarizing yourself with Good Articles on film can assist in your efforts, Gone with the Wind is just an example of structure and scope, though there are other examples. Paleface Jack (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Writing, prose and even length can be factored into a review as well. Paleface Jack (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I read a number of good / featured articles prior to nominating this one. I was surprised to find relatively few featured or good articles on musicals, but most of the ones I found gave a similar song listing.

Regardless, I've now added additional informational text to the music section. I also added refs to some paragraphs that didn't have them, and removed some text I couldn't find reasonable citation for. I wasn't sure whether I needed to cite anything when talking about particular songs being used on particular soundtracks - like sourcing plot, I would think that the work itself would be the primary citation.

As far as writing, prose, and length, I'm happy to clean up any text that isn't up to muster: just let me know where to look!

Happy to take feedback on any and all of it. Thanks again for taking a look! Jm307 (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, classic comedians need more limelight on here. It is nice to see someone is giving them some attention. I myself was going to work on Abbott and Costello articles, but I am too swamped with other projects to work on them. Keep up the good work mate and I will check in on that article soon. Paleface Jack (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! Since this movie goes into public domain in 2026, I was hoping to figure out how to get this to be a featured article by then, so that it could go up in January as TFA. I think a lot of classic movies are going to be rediscovered over the next decade or so as they become available for free. That might give classic comedians that limelight you mentioned. Jm307 (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you talked to the folks at [[WP:FILM]] about this? They might be good contributors to the peer review :) CVDX (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In spite of the fact that I've been wikipedia-ing for 20+ years, I haven't tried to venture into the community. I'll poke around there and see if I can find someone to ask. Jm307 (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Worry about getting it to GA first, then work on refining (and possibly expanding) what you have. Copy edits and peer review will be important as well. I have been working on some large scale projects (The OG Texas Chain Saw Massacre and related articles), Begotten (plus an article on its sequels and creator), among other things. Grand-scale projects are always slow going when going at it myself but great fun. Paleface Jack (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup - I agree it will be a process. There's a reason I started 7 months early. :)

It's good to see your work - I have been looking at featured / good articles for classic films, but a lot of those look like they might have been promoted a while ago. One thing I'm seeing is that I need to make the plot summary either shorter or more interesting (I basically just took what was there and cleaned up the wording a bit). Another is that I need to do a better job with the themes section. Jm307 (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

less is more is always good for leads and sometimes for plots. I will do what I can on that article if you so desire. Paleface Jack (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to get more eyes on it. I was planning on rewriting the plot section, but I'm not so excited about the idea that I would object to someone else doing it. :) Jm307 (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jm307, wow time flies doesn't it, Animal Crackers up for Public Domain already! That means The Cocoanuts is already in PD as of this year. I don't know how to get 'featured spotlight' though one or two of mine have been featured spotlight over the years. Come January 2026 AC should just slide into PD with no problems.Koplimek (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding, @Koplimek! I thought I would start out by putting it up for a good article nomination, but getting an article through that queue looks like it takes the better part of a year unless someone is particularly interested in reviewing it. Can you talk a bit about how you got the attention of someone to review yours for featured?

And yep, The Cocoanuts is PD now! You can pretty much watch it anywhere. Jm307 (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]