# Talk:Americana (1981 film)

This article is currently under construction.  Please do not delete it as there is much expansion planned.--Ishtar456 (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty much done now.  I welcome any additional sources, categories, copy editing, etc.  I'm hoping to have it classified at least a "B-Class".--Ishtar456 (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The trailer for the movie is on youtube, here, where the tagline is provided "There's a dark horse in the American Dream." I thought this might deserve a small mention, though I scratched my head at where to place it (note WP:MOSFILM#Taglines in this regard).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That is not really the trailer for the movie, on youtube.  There is no trailer to my knowledge. Although it appears to be an apt and professional trailer, it is actually the amateur work of a fan.  Pretty good, huh?  I already have it in the external links.  I don't have anything, but the VHS cover, to reference the tagline, but that is in the infobox photo.  The quote on his gravestone is actually from a theme to another movie that he wrote and performed, Sonny Boy, a bazaar horror movie in which Carradine appears in drag.  Look for me to write that article this summer.  I was in touch with the photographer of the gravestone, via email when she first shot the pic.  But she never responded when I asked if i could use it on the wiki-bio. If the subject of Carradine interests you, I recently had his wiki-bio elevated to GA status (my only one so far) a recent documentary on him just showed up on youtube  that demonstrates the accuracies of my edits to that article.--Ishtar456 (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Separate topic, but another, I-have-no-idea-where-to-place-it-and-don't-know-if-it-should-be-mentioned-at-all, but his gravestone, shown here mentions films in his body of work, including Americana.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Not especially interested, but when I see good work, with someone engaged, and an article that is a stone's throw from going to GA, helping out if I can gives me pleasure.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for saying that. BTW, which stone do you you think I still have to throw?  Do you think that it needs more references?  I thought when I started that 12 would suit the topic.  It now has 10 (thanks to you).--Ishtar456 (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I feel your pain. I have worked so hard on so many articles that can never be FAs because of the lack of references on the topic necessary to ever be seen as comprehensive. I think it's quite good and may be ready for GA right now. I can't think of any stone left unturned in looking for sources and continuing might just be trying to get blood from a stone. The writing is good; fairly NPOV; well-sourced and organized. Two things do come to mind though. First, I think it might be good to convert all the citations to use of citation templates ({{cite news}} mostly) which not only is looked for by reviewers (though it's by no means mandatory) but does act to make the citation formatting consistent, so you kill two birds with one stone there. Second, The lead needs expansion to more thoroughly summarize the article. If I was doing the GA review, that would be my first comment; a proper lead is a pretty carved in stone requirement. Note: The use of stone idioms in the preceding comments, may be seen as the product of an altered mind, but I swear I was stone sober when I wrote it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, you know what they say..."a rolling stone gathers no moss"..or is it "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"...or is it repeated stone metaphors at least demonstrates constancy. You're a rock! --Ishtar456 (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Two other things. The article should probably be moved to Americana (film) (see WP:PRECISION), which is a redirect currently, and all the images need alt text.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I was going to continue working on fixing the citations, but I see you already did it.  It looks great.  I originally wanted the American (film) link, but I was not able to get it.  I changed it to the link I made on the disambiguous redirect.  I thought that would be the best way to deal with it since I have already link the article to several related articles.  I don't understand what you mean by "alt text for the images". --Ishtar456 (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll take care of the move (which only an admin can do in any event; the redirect has two edits so it has to be deleted to move the article there. Don't worry about links in other articles; a redirect to this title will automatically be created on the move, and everywhere that you linked to the title with (1983 film) will work just fine.  Sorry about not linking what I meant by "alt text": Wikipedia:Alternative text for images; it's for blind users and is now looked for by both GA and FA reviewers. I can take care of it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and nominated it.  Thanks a million for all your help.  I guess I owe you another barn star.--Ishtar456 (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Great, and you're welcome.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Your edits are fantastic!  I could not have done this without you. BTW, are we going for GA or FA (tee, hee ;0)???--Ishtar456 (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Americana (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
In the Cast and crew section, "...the film also feature" ---> "...the film also featured", the way it is right now reads odd. Same section, "...whom Carradine met while they both worked on The Long Riders" ---> "...whom Carradine met while they both worked on The Long Riders (1980)", so that it can provide context for the reader. In the Inspiration and production section, "...and began a romantic relationship, on the set of Heaven with a Gun" ---> "...and began a romantic relationship, on the set of Heaven with a Gun (1969)".
Check.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
In the Cast and crew section, after "United Artists" add (UA), since you say "U.A.", I mean I know what it is, but how 'bout your reader. Same section, "Around", if a song, isn't supposed to be italicized, instead quotation marks are needed.
Half-check.
Check.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Not that much to do. If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!
--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Extra comments from Maria
A couple points that also need to be addressed:

Carradine's book, Endless Highway, is used as a source numerous times but page numbers should be listed per WP:CITE.  Listing the entire book, which is over 600 pages (!) long, does not help verify the cited info.  Use shorthand cites to include each individual page number.
Several of the citations (refs 2, 3 and 4) do not list access/retrieval dates.
I was going to post these comments to the talk page, but noticed that the article was already under GA review.  Hope you don't mind me crashing the party, ThinkBlue. :)  These points should help the article better fulfill the criteria. María (habla conmigo) 19:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, the more the merrier. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
So much for my guarentee.. I'll work on it.  I really do not know how to do shorthand cites. Will that keep it from passing?--Ishtar456 (talk) 21:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Everything is done except the citation.  Besides the books length, it also has no index, so this will take a little while.--Ishtar456 (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Everything is done, including the citations.  I had to take out the line about Drury, Kansas being the center of the country, because I cannot find the page it is on.  But, I added a quote, in the reception and criticism section about the films reception at the Film Festival in Utah. Now I can focus on the review on I Do Do. BelovedFreak  has offered to help me with my first review. Take Care.--Ishtar456 (talk) 03:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems as though you got Maria's concerns, which is excellent, but I just have one query left. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
yeah, I like they way it is now.  I'm sorry, I thought I did that.  It is done now.--Ishtar456 (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you to Maria for adding her input here, most appreciated, and thank you to Ishtar for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you, and to Fuhghettaboutit  for expensive assistance.  It was more painful than I thought it would be, but worth it.--Ishtar456 (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You think this was painful?  Ha!  It only took one day, and you only had a few things to fix! :)  Job well done regardless; like a lot of things, it will be easier next time. María (habla conmigo) 17:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)