# Talk:La Strada

Is there a reason that this article is lower case? IP4240207xx (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

YES, it's a foreign film and that's the way it's done in mostly Latin films (Spanish, French, Italian, etc) Luigibob (talk) 02:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
It is incorrect. The film's title is "La Strada." Ecoleetage (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason to leave out the translation of the circus owner's name? Seems like it should be included if it is not a common name in Italian. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

First, he's not listed as such in the credits. Second, you don't normally translate people's names. For example, you wouldn't call Helmut Schmidt "Mr. Smith", would you? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Unarguably you make a good observation. But if it's not a common name (and I don't know either way) then there is something lost for an English speaker not to know. Similarly with Il Matto. I assume we translate it because there is something significant in the name. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what would be lost. His name has no bearing on the plot. Il Matto's different; that's his nickname, not his real name, so it has to be translated. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Il Matto has a real name? Not that we know, though. If Giraffa is not a common Italian surname it would seem to benefit from a translation in parentheses following. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The translated name appears in lots of other places, so back it goes. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The article already cites a reliable and verifiable source (I'm a Born Liar: A Fellini Lexicon by Pettigrew) that credits the story to Fellini and Pinelli. Idem for other reliable sources such as Bondanella, Costantini, Alpert, and Kezich including a French study of La Strada by Chris Marker, F-R Bastide, and J. Caputo (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1955). Although Fellini states in Comments on Film and Fellini on Fellini how he conceived the story, he also credits Pinelli's contribution to both the story and the screenplay. Finally, Flaiano was brought in for work on the screenplay after F. and P. finished the story so the order should be Fellini, Pinelli, and Flaiano last - just as it is in the film's credits.--Jumbolino (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

To me all this seems obvious. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Smart-looking table. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I added a section about the personal significance of this film to its director, Federico Fellini. Xela Zeugirdor (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice work! Lugnuts (talk) 09:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

An editor is persisting in adding an assertion of BFI top 10 ranking without providing a source.  Ring Cinema suggests that others should provide the source for his theory. (An earlier suggested source does not justify the assertion.) He has a record for edit-warring and discourtesy.  What next? Regards Ironman1104 (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Apparently you are new and don't know how it works. No problem. First of all, you follow the link in the passage. If you're not satisfied with that, try WP:cite and follow the instructions. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Sarcasm is unnecessary. The source originally given shows your assertion to be incorrect. There's a source to show it's wrong; why keep adding a false assertion? Ironman1104 (talk) 07:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
You are trying to correct me? You have a habit of making rude comments for no reason. If in addition you can't find BFI's 1992 directors' list, I suppose the most generous conclusion is that the technology is not in your wheelhouse. I assure you that I would not suggest you are wasting our time for no reason and getting things wrong repeatedly. 
As I said, in 1992 the directors placed it on their list:
The Sight & Sound Top Ten Poll: 1992
Directors’ poll
1. Citizen Kane (Welles)
2. 8 ½ (Fellini)
2. Raging Bull (Scorsese)
4. La strada (Fellini)
5. L’Atalante (Vigo)
6. The Godfather (Coppola)
6. Modern Times (Chaplin)
6. Vertigo (Hitchcock)
9. The Godfather Part II (Coppola)
10. The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer)
10. Rashomon (Kurosawa)
10. Seven Samurai (Kurosawa)
--Ring Cinema (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Why not calm down, politen up, and put your source in?  Ironman1104 (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
You are advising someone to be polite? You are advising on procedure? I recommend to you WP:cite and WP:good faith. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Yup. You could try being less pompous too! You've been barred and warned before.  Why would that be? :-) Ironman1104 (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ring Cinema. I may well be wrong on this but for clarity's sake, I'll outline briefly my reasoning behind the edit. This is an Italian film and therefore a European subject. If one consults the Federico Fellini article as well as those on his films, the majority of texts use logical punctuation (British) as opposed to the American style. Other examples include the Albert Speer and Samuel Beckett articles (clearly European subjects) that correctly use the British style rather than the American. 
The text in question is a quoted fragment and Wiki's MoS is clear on how it should be punctuated when using logical punctuation: 

When dealing with words-as-words, short-form works and sentence fragments, this style places periods and commas outside the quotation marks:
1- "Carefree", in general, means "free from care or anxiety".
2- The name of the song was "Gloria", which many already knew.
3- She said she felt "free from care and anxiety".
The sentence in question runs thus: 

Fellini added that of all the imaginary beings he brought to the screen, he felt closest to the three principals of La Strada, "especially to Zampano."
Now, "especially to Zampano" is a quoted sentence fragment and based on example 3 above. In keeping with logical punctuation used in the majority of Fellini-related articles, it ought to be punctuated as follows: "especially to Zampano”. 
There are two more quoted sentence fragments in the La Strada article that should use logical punctuation as well (all the other non-fragment quotations are correctly punctuated). As I say, if I’m wrong on this, no problem. If I'm not wrong, I’ll be changing the errors in due course to comply with the majority of European/Fellini-related articles correctly using the British style. --Jumbolino (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay, so you are saying that with fragments we are to assume the punctuation is the contribution of the editor, basically, even if it may appear in the original. Thanks for taking the time to explain. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
This isn't very significant, but my reading is that punctuation from the original is included even in a fragment because all original punctuation is enclosed in quotes. What do you think? --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You raise an important point - and a celebrated publication, I think, may shed light on the problem: the European and American editions of Damned to Fame, James Knowlson's official biography of Beckett. The British edition uses logical punctuation even when quoting American speech – and this is understandable: once a particular quotation style is adopted, it’s imposed throughout. In the Wikipedia Beckett-Speer articles, all the sentence fragments use logical punctuation even when the original fragment is an American quotation. The original American spelling, however, is retained. It would appear that what matters is to quote the fragment with precision while adopting a uniform or consistent style of quotation throughout the article. This seems to me a reasonable approach here as it avoids confusion by imposing the conformity of professional publications. Finally, the quoted fragment in question is by Fellini himself which suggests that we should use the British style in keeping with Fellini-related articles at Wikipedia. Do please let me what you think as it’s always better to reach a consensus. --Jumbolino (talk) 10:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood me. I agree that logical is our punctuation here. What I am saying is that when we use it, we still preserve original marks within the quotes, even in fragments. You seem to say that in fragments the original marks are moved outside quotes, and that is not my reading of the guides. More clear? --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree on using logical punctuation. The rules state: "to include within quotation marks only those punctuation marks that appeared in the quoted material but otherwise to place punctuation outside the closing quotation marks". --Jumbolino (talk) 10:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
So in the fragments we keep the original punctuation inside the quotes. --Ring Cinema (talk) 10:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and it's obvious that all quotations should be sourced for verification of original punctuation. Otherwise, we assume the punctuation is the contribution of the editor. For me, the current logical versions of fragments are correct including "especially to Zampano" with punctuation outside closing quotation marks.--Jumbolino (talk) 11:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but how do you know where the period is in the original? --Ring Cinema (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
At present, no one knows where the period is in the original because the present source can't be verified. In which case, one can only assume the punctuation is the contribution of the editor. Given that it's a fragment, I don't assume the editor has quoted the original version and I don't assume it's a period either - it could be a comma; and the editor who included it should have provided the proper link for verification. I've tried to find the quoted fragment in Murray's book on Google Books and can't (correct me if I'm wrong). In addition, the same editor has conflated two different quotations (Murray and Salachas) within a single source (Salachas)  - a serious error that requires attention. The other fragments are definitely contributions by an editor(s), now correctly sourced and punctuated: I own the book and have verified them. If one can find the original version of "especially to Zampano", we'll re-punctuate, if necessary, by using the Wiki rules we agree on and which seem to be the easiest to follow: If the punctuation is part of the original quotation then it goes inside the quotes, otherwise it goes outside. Or else remove unsourced and/or erroneous quotations.--Jumbolino (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Tried another route and reference and discovered the original quotation (quoted incorrectly) and its original English spelling. Re-punctuated as per Wiki rules on the British style. Will now investigate the other problem of conflating two quotations from different sources.--Jumbolino (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Done.--Jumbolino (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I was thinking about that myself. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

If in doubt, presume that the punctuation is NOT part of the original. Leaving it off is harmless, but adding it may misquote, if one's assumption that it was part of the original is incorrect. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib.  16:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

"her affect remains flat"? What the heck is an "affect"? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
It's not a novel usage. When used as a noun:
4.
Psychology . feeling or emotion.
5.
Psychiatry . an expressed or observed emotional response: Restricted, flat, or blunted affect may be a symptom of mental illness, especially schizophrenia.
For some reason, when 'affect' is used, it's almost always flat. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Simple wiki solution. If there's an article on the psych usage, link to it. If there's not, explain the usage with a parenthetical, or use other wording.  Thank you, please drive through. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib.  16:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)  Update: Actually, a better solution is to reword.  It's highly unlikely that the majority of readers will understand this usage.  For anyone but a psych major, "affect" is a verb, and the sentence simply reads as gibberish. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib.  16:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the link. It's a nice addition. This use of 'affect' is not so unusual and the paragraph is at only American 5th-grade level, per Flesch-Kincaid. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
The sentence never once read "like gibberish" to me, and now that it's got a markup, reads even better. Bravo - faire d'une pierre, deux coups. --Jumbolino (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Ironman has started his warring again on dead subjects. For example, this simple google search corrects him. But we've already been over this months ago. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest changing the section titled "Filming locations" to "Filming" -- and adding some material on experiences during principal photography.  Sound OK? Jburlinson (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yep, sounds good to me. --Jumbolino (talk) 08:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
A big bravo to your dedication and genuine improvements, and for the wide range of sources you've marshalled. --Jumbolino (talk) 10:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

In a 9/30 diff described as "cleanup", there were a couple of changes that I'm not sure I understand as useful.  First, a line that originally read "Long afterwards, in 1990, Quinn sent a note to Fellini and Masina stating: "The two of you are the highest point in my life..."  was changed to "Long afterwards, in 1990, Quinn sent a note to the director and his co-star stating: "The two of you are the highest point in my life...".  This seems ambiguous to me, since Masina was not Quinn's only co-star -- there was also Basehart.  I suppose that context might make this unlikely, but the change introduces an unnecessary degree of ambiguity, it seems to me, to no apparent purpose.  Also, the paragraph about personal significance to Pope Francis was moved to precede the paragraph concerning significance to audience members.  Why?  I'm just trying to get a sense of the thinking behind these changes, and why they should be referred to as "cleanup", as if the prior treatment was somehow disheveled or disordered.  Thanks. Jburlinson (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Clearly Quinn and Masina are the major roles, and I take nothing away from Basehart. Still, he's supporting and no one would call him the star of the picture. I thought of saying "the director and his wife" but I wasn't sure they were still married and it was because she was his co-star that she was included, not because she was Fellini's wife. I moved the Pope paragraph because it is really almost trivia so I thought it better to conclude the section with Fellini's thoughts on the importance of the film as he does. I hope you agree these are improvements to the article. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The changes are fine.  I think the article is getting better all the time.  Thanks for providing some insight as to your changes. Jburlinson (talk) 04:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for all the attention you've given the article. Many important improvements. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering, do you think the article is ready to be upgraded from "start class" on the WP Film project grading system?  In looking at some other film articles, it looks like it might be ready for consideration as a "Good Article."  What do you think?  Would it be worth proposing this?  Jburlinson (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Excellent work on the expansion. I think just the Influence section needs cleaning up (it's still essentially a trivia section), and then go for it! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
OK.  I'll take a stab at it over the next couple of days.  Thanks for the feedback. Jburlinson (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I've given it a shot.  I changed the section's name from "influence" to "legacy" and added some material.  I'd appreciate any suggestions for improvement.  Thanks.Jburlinson (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
First paragraph of Legacy is nicely balanced, a good explanation, and really an excellent summary of the film vis-a-vis neorealism. It is not customary to put the RT numbers outside the reception section but I think it works really well here. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that looks much better. Nice work. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
As it now stands, the article is well worth upgrading. --Jumbolino (talk) 08:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for all the feedback and cleanup.  I'll send in a proposal for a GA review.  Fingers crossed! Jburlinson (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:La Strada/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 13:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review. Comments to follow in the next 1-4 days, unless my library has a copy, in which case I may wait slightly longer so I can rewatch it. Thanks in advance for your work on it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
At first glance, this looks like quality stuff, and a likely candidate for promotion. Thanks again for your work on it. I'm making some tweaks to the prose as I go; feel free to revert any to which you object. I'll list action points below as I go; let me know your thoughts on them.

"leaving the director pale and shaken and his wife, the picture's star, in tears" -- this seems like more finely-grained detail than necessary for the lead, which should be a quick summary per WP:LEAD. Would you object to cutting it? (Oddly, looking down in the article, this incident seems to be discussed in more detail in the lead section than in the body; perhaps this detail could be moved down?)
 Done re-located from lead to "reception" section.Jburlinson (talk) 05:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
"one of the most popular films in cinema history" -- could you clarify what this means? Ticket sales, audience polls, critical approval? I realize it's a critical darling, but it'd surprise me if this remains one of the most widely-viewed films in cinema.
 Done replaced phrase with a quote from the AFI web site -- "one of the most influential films ever made".  Does this help?Jburlinson (talk) 05:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Definitely, thanks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
"But when Gelsomina offers the possibility of marriage, Zampanò brushes her off." -- she proposes to marry Zampano, right, not to marry someone generally (or to marry the fool)?
That wasn't unclear in the first place. Why would Zampano brush her off if she was going to marry the fool? --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 Done re-worded sentence.
File:Lastradamasina.jpg appears to need a tag for its US copyright status.
 Done replaced by alternate image with creative commons license from Wikimedia Commons Jburlinson (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
http://www.richardbasehart.com/ appears to be a self-published source; it doesn't seem to me to qualify as a reliable source. This material will need a more reliable citation or to be cut.
 Done Better RS found.Jburlinson (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
" improvise some ingenious solutions" -- "ingenious" here is a minor bit of judgement/POV; could you simply say "Funding shortages required Giacosi to improvise in response to Fellini's demands"
 DoneJburlinson (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
"Fellini claimed that" -- rewritten as "stated" per WP:WTW
More in a bit... -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

"Film analysts have remarked on the tendency of Italian films of the post-war period to allow considerable freedom in the synching of voices to lip movements, especially in contrast to Hollywood's perceived "obsessive fixation" with the matching of voices to mouths" -- unless this work is talking specifically about La Strada at this point, this may be a small bit of original research to include this author here.
 Done  re-worded to clarify focus on Fellini's work  Jburlinson (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
[46]:p.85 --why does the citation style switch here? It's not necessary to clean this up to attain GA, but you might clean up just for clarity/consistency's sake.
 Done  Jburlinson (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
"When discussing standard Hollywood sound editing, cultural critic Mary Ann Doane has noted that, "synchronization and totality are fetishes and the inseparability of sound and image are posited as a goal"." -- again, unless this critic is talking about La Strada directly here, bringing in unrelated works is a bit of OR
In what respect is it OR? It's not the writer's opinion and it's on the subject at hand. One may ask why there is a general discussion of European sound technique in an article about a film, but it's not OR. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 Done Passage has been re-worded.  Is this better?  Jburlinson (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. Ring, it was OR in the sense that WP:OR states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". In this case, combining Doane's point with a Strada-specific source advances an argument (the difference between Fellini's editing and what Doane sees as standard) that's not made by either source; if the Strada source discusses Hollywood editing the same way as Doane, her quotation is unnecessary anyway. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't see which conclusion is made by our editor that is not in any of the sources since our editor restates what the sources say (apparently). A contrast is made between Fellini and Hollywood in matters of technique. No problem and appropriate to discuss here. That the point about Hollywood methodology mentions how extreme their technique was only makes the contrast more clear. Again, no problem. The two are different. How different? Very different. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, again, I'd argue that you shouldn't bring in sources that don't discuss the article's subject because you want to emphasize a contrast beyond the emphasis it gets in topic-specific sources. We could bring in a quotation about how James Cameron made Avatar to implicitly contrast his methods with Fellini's, for example, but that to me is original research unless it appears in a source on Fellini/Strada. It's best to just rely on the sources about Strada and not do independent research on, for example, Hollywood sound editing. In any case, I think the version that Jburlinson still makes the point sufficiently without needing to go to non-Strada writings, so this seems resolved. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
"Reception" -- since this section seems only to discuss contemporary critics, you might call it "Contemporary reception" or "initial reception" or some such; later critical discussion/reception seems to be absent here
 Done Jburlinson (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
"Jean Aurel cited Giulietta Masina's performance as "directly inspired by the best in Chaplin, but with a freshness and sense of timing that seem to have been invented for this film alone." He found the film "bitter, yet full of hope. A lot like life." -- this appears to need inline citation.
 DoneJburlinson (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
"Personal significance" -- this seems like it could be folded into other sections, such as legacy and reception; it seems a bit odd to have a catch-all section for other individual reactions.
This was a good idea, in fact. The responses of those who worked on the film is a subject many readers will find interesting, but those responses would fit uneasily in a section focused on production or reception. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 Done "personal significance" section deleted and contents re-distributed to "reception" and "legacy".  Although I personally had no problems with a section on personal significance, it doesn't seem to be consistent with the structure of other FA and GA articles.  It appears as if the comments fit OK in other sections, at least to me -- but I'm certainly open to discussion.  I'm just trying to come up with a GA-worthy product. Jburlinson (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate that. This isn't strictly necessary for GA, so if you decide later to revert, the article won't be reassessed as a result. (And I apologize for not making that clearer in my initial comment.) Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film has a standard outline for these articles that may be necessary if this advances to FA, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
"As film critic Millicent Marcus has made explicit: "La Strada remains a film indifferent to the social and historical concerns of orthodox neorealism"" -- this seems to accept Marcus's view as factual in Wikipedia's voice; it might be better to just say "Film critic Millicent Marcus wrote that,"
 DoneJburlinson (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
"and the same Serbian rock band took the film's name as their own on at least three separate occasions" -- this is confusing--they took the name three times? What's the source for this?
The link to the band is there. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, and in any case it's better to explain clearly in this article rather than ask the reader to read the full text of another. Given that this is a bit trivial of a point anyway, it's probably best to just say "a Serbian rock band took the film's name as their own" and leave out the history of the band breaking up and reforming. But it would be best to add an inline citation for clarity; not many of the sources at La Strada (band) look reliable but surely something could be found. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I think I would argue the point, but not very hard. I agree it is utterly trivial -- except in this section of this article. Where else would it bear mentioning? The band's peculiar relationship to the name is brought out a little, too. (They weren't committed to it but they didn't give it up.) The scope of influence is an aspect of it and this example brings it out. (Well, maybe). --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Some of the images, such as File:La Strada.jpg, need captions that explicitly describe their contents; the quotations can be moved into the article's text, or into separate quotation boxes.
Question:  If the caption describes the contents, is it also OK to include the quotations? Jburlinson (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
That's unusual for Wikipedia (I realize it's not unusual for reference works generally), but I think it would be okay. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
File:La Strada.jpg doesn't have a valid copyright tag; it's unlikely that User:Pabloglezcruz, the uploader, is the original creator of this poster as he claims. (Or if it is original work, why are we adding it to the article?) The poster's origin should be clarified in the caption as well. ("Poster for Italian theatrical release, c. 1956" or some such) -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll try to find an appropriate alternative, probably another screenshot from the trailer. Jburlinson (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 Done replaced image with screenshot from 1956 trailer. Jburlinson (talk) 03:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that it would help to add a section on analysis of the film--themes, influence, etc. I realize that there's some of this in "legacy", in "music", and a few other places, so I haven't decided yet if this is "main aspect" enough to be an issue under the GA criterion. Perhaps the discussion of the break with neorealism is enough. But let me poke through my film books, check a few online sources, and get back to you.
Sounds like a good idea.  I think we could come up with a section on "themes", if you think it would be advisable.  I'm still learning how to distinguish a GA from an FA -- so I wasn't sure whether or not a "themes" sections was GA-necessary. Jburlinson (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd say it's on the fence. The GA criteria only require that "main aspects" be covered. Themes is surely a main aspect here, but you already touch on it in several places, so you're at least close to covering this. But like I said, I'll poke around and get back to you on this point. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

That should give you plenty to chew on! Let me know what you think, and thanks again for your work on this important film article. I love seeing people nominate classics like this instead of the latest scifi blockbuster! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick responses! This looks close to passing; I'd just like to make a few more checks, resolve those image/caption issues, and do a little research of my own re: themes. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
All of your fixes/tweaks look great, and I think virtually everything above is resolved. File:Masina.jpg still needs a caption clarifying exactly what it is (photograph? screenshot? Artist's portrayal?). Let me go check some film books re: themes and get back to you on that point. I still need to do spotchecks for accuracy/copyvio, too, but I think that's all that remains. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I checked three general film books and all three emphasize what you do, the transition from neorealism to fabulism. So I think this is set on interpretation. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


### Checklist
This isn't a necessary action point for the GA criteria, just a suggestion: File:La-strada-trailer-1956.jpg is a bit of a dull image, since the text obscures most of the image behind it, whereas the Kempley quotation you put underneath it is great. What would you think about cutting the image and putting the quotation in Template:Quote box to give it more emphasis and visual appeal? Up to you. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 Done  good idea.  Jburlinson (talk)
This looks all set to me, then. Thanks for your patience with and quick responses to a lengthy review. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on La Strada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110910235713/http://www.bodilprisen.dk/1956 to http://www.bodilprisen.dk/1956
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on La Strada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131016202924/http://bronze.uco.edu/passport/italy/springer/strada.html to http://bronze.uco.edu/passport/italy/springer/strada.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The title La Strada is translated "the street".  It could also be "the road".  Both translations would be literally correct.  However, the film is very much about roads - between towns - and little about streets.  One can also say that that it is, metaphorically, about "the road of life".  The film is discussed in English as La Strada. So I propose to change "street" to "road", if there are no objections. Errantios (talk) 08:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

There being no comments after a week, I have made the change. Errantios (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The second paragraph of this article states, "Finally, just before the production completed shooting, Fellini suffered a nervous breakdown that required medical treatment so that he could complete principal photography." I inserted "the" before "principal photography." Another editor, User talk:Just plain Bill, reverted it. He and I discussed this under "View history" of this article and at his talk page under the heading "the." We continue to disagree, but as of now, no "the" precedes "principal photography." Does another editor have a comment? (For convenience, I have used masculine pronouns in referring to Just plain Bill, but, of course, pseudonyms do not reveal the sex or other personal information about editors.) Maurice Magnus (talk) 11:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Both are acceptable, grammatically speaking, but omitting the "the" seems to be far more popular:
"Learn the steps needed to establish a production entity, plan an appropriate preproduction period, approve and monitor a production budget and shooting schedule, recruit heads of departments, and lead the production crew toward completing principal photography on time and within budget."
"in the case of an individual, a Canadian who is an individual who, by reason of being an individual described in section 2 (1) (a) of the Act, is subject to tax under section 2 of the Act for the year preceding the year in which principal photography of the eligible production begins, or"
"Last week, principal photography began on The End We Start From"
"Principal photography has wrapped on the psychological drama Canvas".
Even Bilbo Baggins seems to endorse it: A podcast(?) titled Secrets of The Hobbit states that The Hobbit is wrapping up principal photography.
Now go argue about something more important, like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. In writing for Wikipedia, I hew to Strunk's maxim: "Omit needless words." Just plain Bill (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I surrender. Here is where we can argue about How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?. But all opinions must be supported by published sources, of course. Maurice Magnus (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)