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 list was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

---

Greed (film)[edit]

Greed (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): Deoliveirafan (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because a lot of work has gone into the article from several editors who all deserve credit for it. I think it is currently in great shape and would be an interesting choice as a Featured Article. I'm willing to work on the page if requested, but may need a little time to re-order my sources from the local library. Deoliveirafan (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Tend to oppose' The plot section is huge, and does not follow WP:FILMPLOT.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it was shortened would you have any other objections?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have not read other parts of the article. My objection was solely based on the plot section. If the plot is shortened, I would remove my oppose.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll have it shorter by this weekend. Also, you should read the rest at this point. The irony of all this is funny.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its shorter now.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Any takers?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I struck out my potential oppose which was solely based on the length of the plot section. It is shorter now, although may not strictly follow the guideline, but that is not a major problem perhaps. The lead is fascinating. I have not read the rest of the article yet. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment More on plot: Do we really need the first paragraph (how McTeague's mother pleads Potter the dentist etc)? This seems not to be related to the actual plot/theme of the film. Cannot we begin with something like, "McTeague is a dentist in San Francisco..."

  It could go, but I'd rather not cut it. In the original cut these scenes took up the first hour of the film.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "As they wait for an opening, Trina buys a lottery ticket from Maria." Who is Maria?--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• A suggestion for fixing this second point is at Talk:Greed (film)#Maria in the plot. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I just read that post in the talk page. I agree that it can be left as "As they wait for an opening, Trina buys a lottery ticket." Maria, when she is mentioned in the subplot, has a proper introduction (including the fact that she sold the lottery ticket to Trina). And before that subplot, Maria is not mentioned in the plot anymore. So, this sounds good.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• done --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment
• "Von Stroheim's interest in McTeague can be traced back to January 1920..." What is McTeague. You have not mentioned it is a book. (Yes, you did mention that in the lead, but not in the body of the article yet).

• This might be fixed simply by changing it from "Von Stroheim's interest in McTeague" to "Von Stroheim's interest in the novel McTeague", but if the body of the article must stand alone from the lead completely, then it needs to be recast by mentioning the novel first. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes; and the sentence "McTeague was first published in 1899 and was inspired by an October 1893 murder case in which a poor husband with a history of beating his wife finally stole her money and stabbed her to death at her workplace in San Francisco" should be moved from Theme to the beginning of "Background" section.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I strongly disagree. It relates more to the themes of the film and I think is better where it is.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, no problem.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead says the film is based on the novel McTeague, but that is not mentioned in the body of the article.

• done--Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "He had previously lived in San Francisco shortly after moving to the US in the early 1910s". Why is it important to know that he lived in San Francisco?

  As von Stroheim is so central to the entire tale, I think it's useful to have this small added element of biographical info. It certainly was for me, reading it for the first time as someone who had neither heard of the film nor heard of von Stroheim. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, every source on the film mentions some aspect of this part of von Stroheim's life.

• , in that case the article should mention why staying in San Francisco was important in his life/career/this film. Did he do something while in SF that led to this film making? I mean, you mention he lived in SF in the initial period, so perhaps he moved somewhere else after that. Why is that not important, too? --Dwaipayan (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The first paragraph of "Background and writing" in this version has three sentences which seem completely disconnected in their content or theme. Why are these three sentences come in this way?

• Which three sentences?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In this version, the first two sentences (Greed is based upon American author Frank Norris's 1899 novel McTeague. Von Stroheim's interest in McTeague can be traced back to January 1920 when he told a journalist that he wanted to film the novel) are fine and flows nice. However, the nest two sentences (He had previously lived in San Francisco shortly after moving to the US in the early 1910s.[6] His firing by Universal's Irving Thalberg on October 6, 1922 while working on Merry-Go-Round was an unprecedented event in Hollywood, bringing in a new era in which the producer and the studio had power over artists and directors) how are they connected to the previous two sentences. A connection should be there. IMO, if the importance of San Francisco (as discussed above in a point) is established, the staying in SF sentence would become ok. But a context/background of the firing would be needed for un-halted reading of this paragraph. Otherwise, the last two sentences appear as two disjointed ideas forcefully placed in that paragraph.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "His firing by Thalberg..." Who is Thalberg?

• done--Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Goldwyn had been run by Abe Lehr since March 1922 and Lehr had publicly promised that "each director will have his own staff and will be given every facility in putting into production his own individuality and personality. He will have the co-operation of the department heads of the Culver City studio, but each unit will be separate unto itself." This whole long quote seems completely unnecessary in an article about this film.

• Suggest cutting it to 'Goldwyn had been run by Abe Lehr since March 1922 and Lehr had publicly promised that "each director will have his own staff and will be given every facility in putting into production his own individuality and personality"' --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• done--Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "...have reformed - or surrendered - for it is..." Endash with space, or, emdash.

• done--Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Before shooting began, von Stroheim told a reporter, "it is possible to tell a great story in motion pictures in such a way that the spectator forgets he is looking at beauteous Gertie Gefelta the producer's pet and discovers himself intensely interested, just as if he were looking out of a window at life itself. He will come to believe that what he is gazing at is real — a cameraman was present in the household and nobody knew it. They went on in their daily life with their joys, fun and tragedies and the camera stole it all, holding it up afterward for all to see" Again, a big quote. Please explicitly establish its connection with the film, or remove/summarize.

• It relates to von Stroheim's style and beliefs as a filmmaker. I can't see a way to summarize it.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You dont necessarily need to summarize, but establish the connection. Indeed you have established the connection while replying here. That it reflects his belief as a filmmaker. So, perhaps you can add that bit, that it was his principle/idea of film-making.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "He also attended society functions in town..." How is this important to the film article?

• It relates to the amount of research that von Stroheim put into the film in order to get authenticity. I think its clear.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Then you should mention that he was researching the social scenario. It is not unusual that a director would attend social functions etc, and that probably does not need mention. But if he was doing that to do pre-production research, definitely that should be mentioned.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "he even rented the buildings from the novel's real-life inspirations for the film...". Means there were real people on whom the novel was based?

• Would it work better as "he rented some of the actual buildings that had inspired scenes in the novel"? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, your suggested version is probably better.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• done--Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Giving the present-day equivalent of the amount of 5000 dollars would be helpful for the readers.

• done--Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^Please provide a source how you converted the 5,000 dollars to present-day equivalent.

I can't find a web source that creates a unique url for the calculation. Could I just add a link to the inflation calculator?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure. Probably providing an explanatory note that a certain inflation calculator was used (with url of the online calculator) to calculate the present value would be enough.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey Demiurge1000, thanks for taking care of some of these and sorry for not following through on the Maria concern. I will be able to work on this either a little bit every day or all at once on Friday. But most of these concerns should be easy to address so it shouldn't take long....once I find the time and catch up on sleep.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a query (may not be important for this article), do we know why was he fired by Thalberg?--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It was because he was over budget and over schedule, which is now (basically) mentioned in the article.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Is "sometime-actor" an usual term?--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey, I'll finish this up Friday or Saturday.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, I think the concerns above have been addressed.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead in this version has six paragraphs, three of them pretty small paragraphs. If possible, please consider merging so that the lead has less number of paragraphs, and, more importantly, we have less of such small choppy paragraphs.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I've always agreed. I'm just going to fix these in the entire article.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support except criteria 1a and 1c.

I do not have the capacity to judge the article against criterion 1a, as I do not use a professional level English. However, for an user with advanced level of English, the article is quite engaging, and lucid. I did not verify the references; so unable to comment on criterion 1c. Otherwise, the article is very nice, has a fascinating lead. It aroused in me a real interest in this exceptional film. Nice work, regards, --Dwaipayan (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  What does that mean?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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