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 10:04, 30 July 2014 [1].

---

Subway Sadie[edit]

Nominator(s): Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a lost film from 1926 about a subway guard and a fur salesgirl. I've exhausted all usable sources to create a comprehensive article and the prose has been buffed up since the GA nomination passed. It's not the longest article, but I think it meets the criteria regardless. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review (complete)

• File:Subway Sadie poster.jpg - I'd say there's a 99% chance that this is PD (most studios didn't start regularly putting copyright notices on their posters until the 1930s). Do you have access to a higher resolution scan for us to check?

• Here's a slightly higher one. All text seems legible, doesn't look like there's a copyright notice. I'm not a copyright wizard; would this make it PD?

• The copyright text is usually very small, so I would say not yet. We'd have to hunt down if there were any renewals 28 years after publication. My internet is fritzing out on me, so I can't check it right now. We hope is usually pretty good with this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco 1492 and Taylor Trescott--didn't find a larger one. Sadie was renewed; I agree that the poster probably has no copyright marks on it, but how about a compromise--changing this for a nice, big lobby card with no copyright marks? If you guys give me a few minutes, I think I can also get some more photos of the folks in the film and a photo of a theater marquee showing the film through Lantern. We hope (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The lobby card looks free. We should be using that then. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Give me a minute to get it to Commons.:) We hope (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Great. I'm uploading a higher resolution of the MacKaill image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK--File:Subway Sadie lobby card 1926.jpg here it is. Did either of you see these photos in Motion Picture News for 1926? We hope (talk) 03:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I've been limiting myself to images used in the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Jack Mulhall - Jul 1920 MP.jpg - How on Earth do you know Evans died in 1923? PD-1923 is what you're looking for.

• Fixed.

• File:Dorothy MacKaill Stars of the Photoplay.jpg - The links aren't working for me.

• Here is an alternate one. I reuploaded it using this source because the blue tint was unsightly and it was a larger resolution.

• Better, but this has a copyright tag (title page). Was this renewed? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Seemingly not as it's in the Media History Digital Library. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. So the tag would be ((PD-US-not renewed)). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK-Stars of the Photoplay was not renewed. I checked books and periodicals for 1951 and 1952. The only renewals for Photoplay were in 1951-for a couple of stories in back issues. We hope (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. That means we're nice and safe. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Subway Sadie promo still.png - Why, exactly, is this PD? Was there no copyright notice on the back? How can you confirm that when the back wasn't included in the ebay ad? Yes, most promotional stills were not copyrighted, but Wikipedia has required actual proof (i.e. the backs) for several years now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Swapped out for a new still which I can confirm is PD.

• File:Subway Sadie film still Picture-Play.png needs categories, and the date should be fixed (speaking of that, make sure all of the dates are the correct ones for your other files). For display on Wikipedia, a jpg format is best (the software sharpens the thumbnails, making them clearer), but I can do that myself if you are pressed for time. But a bigger problem: there is a clear copyright notice on the bottom of the table of contents (here). Do you have proof this wasn't renewed? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure... the Media History Project lists it as one of several magazines that have lapsed into PD. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. So the tag would be ((PD-US-not renewed)). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for doing this Crisco. I'm a bit hurried for time, but I think I addressed these properly. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Prose comments

Al Rockett - Per WP:REDLINK, biographies should generally not be redlinked

Couldn't find a redlink for Rockett. There was one for Hugh Bennett and I took it out. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 14:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Randall portraying Brown - who's Brown?

IDK. The sources with a plot don't give the names of any of the other characters. Want me to nuke it? Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 14:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

running for 70 minutes. - at how many FPS? If I remember correctly, silent films could be shown at several speeds. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With 35mm film, 1 minute is usually projected with 90 feet being one minute. Changed to "around 70 minutes". Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 14:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose and images. Good work on another lost film article! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you and We hope for the help! Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 14:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

• FN8: title formatting, page number?
• FN2, 20: article title? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for the help. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For such a short article, the prose had several grammar mistakes and redundant phrases. I'd like to run through and copyedit the article tomorrow, and perhaps leave some nitpicks for you to fix on your own. ceranthor 15:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. It is appreciated. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 17:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor:

Lead

• The silent film began production shortly after May 1926. - Why "after May"? Does that just mean June?

You are right. I originally did not have the source that specified it started May 3. Changed.

Plot

• I noticed you forgot to mention a fact mentioned here, that after Sadie decides to marry him, "Herb reveals that his father is president of the subway company".

Done.

Image captions

• A scene from the film, featuring Mulhall and Mackaill. Their successful pairing in Subway Sadie led to them appearing in many further films. - I think several other films would be better than "many further", unless there are other films not listed in the article.

Done.

Release and reception

• The Morning Telegraph' review - Unfamiliar with this punctuation... could you explain?

It's just a mistake. Fixed

• The Morning Telegraph' review said that Subway Sadie would "delight the majority of straphangers" and that "it is what the boys call excellent box-office". - this sentence needs a citation?
• The New York American review was similarly positive, describing it as "a light but charming comedy". - Citation?

Those two are both cited to ref #20

• In June 1927, a Southeast Missourian journalist wrote that the film had since become "very successful".[23] - Any explanation of what this vague statement means?

It's supposed to imply the film was considered a success after its release. I could take it out it you want.

Since the source is so vague, it seems fine as is. Don't worry about it.

In general, it's fairly well-written, but there's a lot of passive voice. ceranthor 21:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and copyedits. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Taylor. I've made a list of most of the sentences with passive voice here. For such a short article, I feel like we can collaborate to get rid of some of the passive voice in this article. Feel free to run your ideas by me, and I'll run through the article and try to help, too. ceranthor 21:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceranthor: I took a stab at eliminating some of the passive voice. How'd I do? Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 14:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied! :) ceranthor 18:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Prose now looks good, and references seem to check out. ceranthor 18:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your help! Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - reading through now. Will jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a silent film shot in black-and-white - this line sorta just sits there and doesn't segue onto the previous...but I can't think of an alternative place to put it. sentence is a bit short and abrupt.

The rest of it reads fine - it appears comprehensive...will read again and muse on this line..otherwise on track for passing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I merged that line with the Edeson one. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 12:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aah, well done. I was staring at it for a bit and unsure, but that works fine...ergo, support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.