# Talk:The Life and Deeds of the Immortal Leader Karađorđe

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Life and Deeds of the Immortal Leader Karađorđe/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Squeamish Ossifrage (talk · contribs) 18:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Very happy to see a well-developed silent film article here, especially from an area I know little about. I'm honored to take this one; full review pending. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


### Prose
Several English sources (including the two potentially useful additional sources I mention below) seem to give the translated title as The Life and Deeds of the Immortal Vožd Karađorđe (rather than Leader). I see that Sudar prefers Leader, and that there's been some page move history here on this topic. Do you feel Sudar is authoritative in this regard? In any case, perhaps a footnote?
Vožd is an archaic word meaning "leader". Since the rest of the title is in English I find that it makes more sense to use Sudar's translation. 23 editor (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
"The last extant copy went missing...": I might go with "known" rather than "extant" here. Strictly speaking, extant means surviving; so the copies that were rediscovered later were still technically extant at that time.
Done.
General practice has been to name the plot section "Plot" rather than "Summary". This isn't actionable, just an FYI if you care about cross-article quasi-standardization.
Done.
Any thoughts as to which actors get redlinks vs. no links? Clearly, there's a lot of work to be done in this topic area, but I'm curious as to the thought process here.
I think Botorić, Stanojević, Petrović and de Beéry merit red links because they were notable figures in their own right. The other crew members are known almost exclusively for their work on this film.
So, I note from later in the text that the adult Milorad Petrović is distinct from the adolescent actor Milorad Petrović. I might consider moving that explanation out of §Casting and cinematography and into §Cast, below the cast list, to obviate reader confusion (I know I was confused!). Also, it seems... less likely that the child actor earns a red link?
Actually... it's tempting to think that the casting paragraph from §Casting and cinematography should just be in §Cast to avoid redundancy, although I'm open to arguments to the contrary here.
Or maybe remove the cast list altogether?
Is there a source to attach to the cast list? That's generally not strictly required for modern films, but it is preferred for these early silent-era films where there aren't typically comprehensive in-film credits. If you move the prose cast discussion up, that's sourced, and mitigates the concern somewhat.
All the names are pulled from the Casting and cinematography section, where they are referenced.
The mention of films of daily life on the Belgrade streets seems like a good place to pipe a link to actuality film.
Done.
Do either the Hotel Paris or Paris Cinema have enough notability to warrant a redlink?
I don't think so (little historical significance other than this and destroyed during World War I or II, if I remember correctly). 23 editor (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


### Sources
First, allow me to thank you. You have all of your ISBNs formatted as properly-hyphenated ISBN-13s. This is always a pet peeve of mine, makes me happy to see it done correctly.
For Golubović 1985, if no ISBN was assigned, an OCLC is probably preferable to an ASIN (Amazon's proprietary identifier). Here, that would be OCLC 440998824.
Done.
Kosanović 2004 appears to be unused.
Removed.
Sretenović 2017 appears to be published by Politka, but that's missing from the citation.
Fixed.
There's no requirement for source surveys to be comprehensive at GA, but this is clearly bound for FAC at some point. This looks promising as an additional resource. Perhaps also this.
Thanks, I'll definitely take a look.


### Images
Check that images published outside the US have both a US public domain license tag and a license tag for the country of publication (here, Serbia; despite the intervening map changes, it is the legal successor state at issue). Serbia is a life+70 country, and Botorić died in 1916, so there should be no problems here. But the images do need a {{PD-old-70}} or something of that nature, to indicate that they are also public domain in their country of origin.
Done.


### Other
With this film having been digitized and in the public domain, is there any chance that it's viewable online? I know the Internet Archive is doing a pretty good job of acquiring American public domain silent films, but I couldn't find this one there.
I think you can find it on Youtube or Daily Motion if it interests you. 23 editor (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
@23 editor: There's really very little to complain about here. You may or may not opt for my idea regarding cast discussion, and most of the other issues are quickly fixable. The image licensing concern is the most technical issue; I can't promote until that's complete, although it's pretty trivial to do so here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Squeamish. Sorry for the delay (busy IRL). I've addressed your comments to the best of my ability. Let me know what you think. 23 editor (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
A drive-by comment: the link in the lead of the article to Karađorđe, but with the link text "eponymous rebel leader", arguably fails WP:SUBMARINE and probably also User:EEng#Dopey words that should never appear in articles. Can we not do that, please? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I've changed this, David. Squeamish, is this one good to go now? 23 editor (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Tend to concur; "eponymous" is fairly common in writing about music, specifically in constructions of the sort "The band released their eponymous first album in 2015", but this is kind of a music-journalism affectation, and it's not that common elsewhere.  WP is written for kids and non-native English speakers, too, not just those with university degrees, so we need not put terms like "eponymous" in there if we can help it.  One solution is not write something with a structure like "The Life and Deeds of the Immortal Leader Karađorđe, AKA just Karađorđe is a [blah blah], about Karađorđe, who [yak yak]."  It's a bit brow-beating.  Use separate sentences.  Our lead para. has two sentences, the first bordering on a run-on, and which contains the name three times. I would redo it thus: The Life and Deeds of the Immortal Leader Karađorđe (Serbian: Život i dela besmrtnog vožda Karađorđa, Serbian Cyrillic: Живот и дела бесмртног вожда Карађорђа), or simply Karađorđe, is a 1911 silent film directed by Ilija Stanojević and starring Milorad Petrović. It was the first feature film released in Serbia and the Balkans.  Petrović portrays the rebel leader Karađorđe, who led the First Serbian Uprising of 1804–1813. Aside from moving the necessary third mention of the name a bit to be less repetitive, this also has four additional "features": more complete lang templating; removal of the redundant "(Serbian Cyrillic: Карађорђе)" after the Latin-alphabet short title (since most of our readers are not brain-damaged, heh); replacement (and shortening) of the odd "presided over" which suggests a neutral aloofness; and compression of the long-winded "It is notable for being the first feature film to be released in" to just "It was the first feature film released in", since lots of those words are not necessary, and we already know it's notable or we couldn't keep an article on it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I've altered the intro to match your input, SMcCandlish. Is this one good to go now, Squeamish? 23 editor (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


### Status query
Unfortunately, Squeamish Ossifrage hasn't edited on Wikipedia for over two months. Pinging David Eppstein and  SMcCandlish to see whether either of them would be willing to finish this review. If not, we'll have to see about finding someone else to take over. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, BlueMoonset. Perhaps we should get someone else to take over at this point? 23 editor (talk) 12:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)cmt

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Life and Deeds of the Immortal Leader Karađorđe/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 03:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
First, sorry that it's taken so long to get another review for you! Second, if this passes can we please have a DYK about the two Milorad Petrovics? Third, if you have a link to the film with translated intertitles, I'd love to watch it.


### Style
Lead of an appropriate length (if just on the longer side of apt) for the article length
Information in lead apt regarding article; all expanded on and cited in main body
Repetition of "success domestically" in Contemp. reception; maybe second instance could be "Despite its success in its native country" or something? Minor thought.
I quite like the 'where did they end up' at the end of the Contemp. reception section.
Nice write up of that section, too, handling of information solid. Spread through section in a nice way.
The Rediscovery section is probably the bit that makes me want to watch the film. And Legacy. It's good, is what I'm saying.
Nicely written. Good use of wikilinks (except maybe "postal service") and good layout of article in general. May benefit from tightening up for a FA nom (i.e. some repeated content through different sections that could be trimmed, but not major), but solidly meets criteria for GA.
Passes


### Coverage
Plot description of a suitable length
Good comprehensive coverage of the origins of the film, detailing background and reasoning, and giving some cultural perspectives.
The first paragraph of Casting and cinematography is mostly a prose list that repeats the cast list; is there a way to diversify it a bit?
Other paragraph of C&C is good, but a note that would improve the article further would be to see if you can expand to say what scenes were portrayed at the river banks, for example - certain fight sequences, camping. (If sources provide, of course)
If you're going to give body space to the other Balkan films, then surely the relevant explanatory text in footnote [b] can be incorporated into the body text? I'd even suggest expanding the efn, and putting the Hungarian/Bulgarian/Croatian films into an efn.
Good extensive coverage of response & restoration. And they are each a good length compared to the other.
Is there not more critical analysis? A genuine question - what's written is good and, I guess, comprehensive, but I would expect there to be more, especially with gaining representation. However, the section provides a good representation of the different views in the literature, so it fulfills that (accurately reflecting the critical field).
I've tweaked the mentions of Louis de Beery, so that WP voice doesn't say he worked for Pathé - especially in lead with no ref this was just misinformation. Even if the source doesn't say so, an efn that includes a link to the discovery will cover it.
Passes - though can be improved (and I might work on it now that it's got me interested), nothing blocking from GA


### Verifiability
Ooh, you're using the fancy citation style. All sources look appropriate.
No ref for the plot; as a generally inaccessible film that also has plenty sources on its rediscovery and restoration, it would seem better to have a plot ref
Likewise with the cast
Passes - but would be nice to have those refs


### Neutrality
Written neutrally
Different views in critical field represented, with even weight and contextualizing of sources.
Passes


### Illustration
Good use of commons images, well spread through article, good number for length.
Could question the screenshot next to the Restoration section, but it seems related through the fact it is clearly a restored frame since it exists; though this could be elaborated in the caption.
Passes


### Copyvio
check shows no copyvio
I don't speak Serbian, but quality of sources and good paraphrasing of English sources gives me good faith on this one.
Passes


### Overall
A nice article, well-written, got me interested in the film. I see room for improvement, but it meets GA. Kingsif (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Didn't include it (oops) but article is also v. stable. Kingsif (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Kingsif. Thanks for tackling this review! I've made some of the changes you recommended. Unfortunately, the film hasn't received an enormous amount of academic/scholarly attention, so this is the best I could do as far as analysis/content is concerned.  Given the number of sources available, I've thrown everything but the kitchen sink at this article.
Concerning refs for the plot/cast, if the film was still lost I'd agree they are necessary, but as is common practice film summaries don't typically require citations. The major cast members are cited in the development section. I find that the development section is useful for providing background info on the performers, which a plain list just doesn't do.
As a side note, forgive me, but I don't quite understand your objections to de Beery being described as a Pathe cinematographer, as per Sudar. For many years it was believed that his relationship with Pathe was suspect but in the early 2000s it was discovered that de Beery was in fact a pseudonym and that he was registered with Pathe under his real name.
Ah, this wasn't explained in the article - I would suggest explaining that, then, both when he's introduced and as part of the rediscovery! Kingsif (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
As for the two Milorad Petrovics, I was thinking of having the DYK for this particular article state that this was the first Serbian and Balkan feature film. I do intend on creating an article about the adult actor, however. The two Milorad Petrovics can be the DYK for that article.
Nice ideas :) Kingsif (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
As you probably noticed the clips online only have Serbian intertitles. If you wish to find a copy with English intertitles your best bet would be to write an email to the Yugoslav Film Archive and ask them for assistance (see here ). The archive employs plenty of seasoned and well-educated film experts so you can definitely write it in English and expect to receive a cogent response. I'm sure they'd be more than happy to help. You could also head to your local university library (if you have access) and see if they have it.
And if you'd like to contribute to the article with the aim of promoting it to FA, you may do so by all means. Happy to have you onboard! 23 editor (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, and well done on the article! Kingsif (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The text says:

The screening was denounced by some Croatian nationalists, who objected to a Serbian film being shown in the Croatian capital.
The source, however, says:

Zanimljivo je da projekcija filma takvog naziva nije izazvala reakcije hrvatskih desničara, osim ljutih komentara anonimnih čitalaca na portalima.
The source actually states the opposite ("the screening [...] did not cause any reactions by Croatian right-wingers"), and describes the opposition as an exception, ascribing it to "angry comments by anonymous [Internet] portal visitors". Since it is easy to find anonymous Internet opposition to pretty much anything, the relevance of this fact is dubious, particularly in the context of the first part of the sentence, as worded by the source. GregorB (talk) 12:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)