Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ralph Bakshi/archive8

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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:30, 16 August 2009 [1].

---

Ralph Bakshi

Nominator(s): Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Ralph Bakshi/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Ralph Bakshi/archive2
• Featured article candidates/Ralph Bakshi/archive3
• Featured article candidates/Ralph Bakshi/archive4
• Featured article candidates/Ralph Bakshi/archive5
• Featured article candidates/Ralph Bakshi/archive6
• Featured article candidates/Ralph Bakshi/archive7
• Featured article candidates/Ralph Bakshi/archive8
• Featured article candidates/Ralph Bakshi/archive9

I am nominating this for featured article because it has been significantly expanded and improved since its last nomination. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment Incredibly, the article appears to have regressed in regards to one significant claim: that Fritz the Cat "gross[ed] over $100 million worldwide". This claim--solely sourced to a passing phrase in a Variety obituary of the film's producer--ignores multiple WP:V-standard sources that contradict it. I've raised this issue multiple times with the nominator: twice during the previous FAC nomination ([2], [3]) and on his Talk page between nominations (User_talk:Ibaranoff24/Archive_1#Bakshi). Steve then solved the problem, moderating the claim in the article text and adding a note referencing the wide variety of figures given for the film's box-office gross ([4]). The nominator has seen fit to revert Steve's work and restore the claim he seems inalterably wedded to. DocKino (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that two sources print that the film grossed more than $100 million - Variety and Unfiltered: The Complete Ralph Bakshi - gives the figure more credibility than any of the other figures suggested. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC))

Note: DocKino has not made any edits since June 29, when he was warned against edit-warring. This user, by the way, did not object to the sourcing of a book that I strongly suspected to have been copied from or researched from a Wikipedia revision giving a gross sourced from a user-edited IMDb page. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC))

My choice about when and whether to edit is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not this article meets FA standards. (And, by the way, this is Wikipedia: anyone can go ahead and warn anybody about anything at any time. Would you like me to stick a warning tag on your Talk page? How about one for incivility? You've certainly earned it over the past few months.)

Your response is inadequate. (1) It is unclear even where in Unfiltered: The Complete Ralph Bakshi this claim is based. The citation is one of a remarkable twenty-eight citations that reference eight different pages in the book. Please cite the specific page on which this claim appears. While you're at it, please cite the other specific pages on which other specific, discrete bits of information appear. (2) Even ignoring the book you "strongly suspect" is itself poorly sourced, we still have multiple high-quality sources giving very different figures for the film's box office take. Steve made sure those sources were acknowledged; you have made sure they are not. (3) You continue to refuse to do what I advised a while back. Research the actual, authoritative Variety box office reports.—DocKino (talk) 10:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? It cites the chapter relating to the film, conveniently labeled "Fritz the Cat". The statement occurs in the last two pages of the chapter (80-81). And Variety backs this up. I refuse to do what you advise because you have no idea what you're talking about, and I refuse to cite inaccurate figures. The figures cited in this article are accurate and will stay. Your comments are unhelpful and disruptive. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC))

I would also like to see this issue resolved, but I doubt it's paramount to the article becoming a featured article. It raises a question though: What should be the authoritative source on a film's gross if sources differ? Or do we just give a range in the article and say sources disagree? --Laser brain (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that several of these sources seem equally reliable. Back when I gave this a copyedit a month or two ago I attempted to implement a compromise; it was swiftly reverted, so I'm not sure what the solution should be. Steve ^T • C 18:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Because the figures reflected in the article are the accurate ones. The figures in the citations you added are out of date and questionably sourced. Unfiltered and Variety both state that the film grossed over $100 million, therefore, the figure has more authority than a book like Planet Cat, added by you, which is not only not about animation history or Ralph Bakshi, but is sourced from a Wikipedia revision sourced from Internet Movie Database, edited by some random person. And how does this qualify as "swiftly reverted" when your edits sat there for months before being changed to reflect what is factually accurate and verified? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC))

Well, less than one month actually; I considered that swift in the scheme of things. Though I accept that my choice of wording could be seen as antagonistical, I hope that given the time I spent copyediting the article my good faith in helping you get it to FA standard is clear; the question over the film's box office shouldn't be allowed to hold the nomination up, and I only wanted to pursue a solution that would satisfy everyone. Good luck, Steve ^T • C 00:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for coming across as accusatory/aggressive or anything else, that really wasn't my attention, and I do feel that you put in a lot of good work into the article, and I did accept the compromise enough to apply it to other articles covering the film's production before reading Unfiltered, which is more recently researched, and is the only thorough discussion of Bakshi's career (although I was initially under the impression that it was an art book with very little text, and I was unable to find a copy for quite some time), which is why I feel that it is more authoritative in regards to the film's gross...and the fact that Variety agrees with Unfiltered confirms this... (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC))

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Ralph_Bakshi.jpg should be looking into the text, otherwise images fine Fasach Nua (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Done. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC))
  • Note: I've reverted your mirroring change to RalphBakshiJan09.jpg. MOS:IMAGES says "images should not be reversed simply to resolve a conflict between these guidelines". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Should you be replying to me, considering that it was MacMed who made that decision? I considering flipping the other photo, but I decided that it wasn't necessary, since simply changing the placement is much easier. And I really don't understand why either of these images should "face the text". (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC))
      • No it was an explanatory comment to Fasach Nua or anyone else who might be wondering why File:RalphBakshiJan09.jpg has been flipped (again) and is no longer facing the text. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I was about to comment on the FLC for Ralph Bakshi filmography suggesting that it be merged into this article as it isn't very long. Would anyone object to that? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The filmography has been merged. Hopefully that shouldn't change things too much. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. I added it to the lead image, to help get you started. Eubulides (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed most of the dabs; however I cannot find the link to Ralph Bakshi filmography, which is a redirect to Ralph Bakshi. The toolbox says the article links to the redirect, but I could not find it with a WikEd search. MacMed^talk_stalk 20:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The filmography was merged into and redirected to this article. The link was from the navbox at the bottom; I removed it. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - I admit I was wary when I saw this here for the 8th time, but it looks like a lot of great work has been done since the last nomination. The prose is way better, and the research appears more thorough. A couple comments:
  • A couple of the details in the Early Life section struck me as inane and unrelated to Bakshi's development and body of work—especially the bit about the city noise soothing him to sleep. I can see mentioning how he dug through trash cans to get comics, but do we need the bit about cutting his hands? It seems more anecdotal than encyclopedic.
    • Clipped. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC))
  • "Bakshi was sent to the principal's office, where a transfer to Manhattan's School of Industrial Art was initiated" Unclear. Did the principal initiate the transfer? On his own or in consultation with Bakshi's parents? The subject of the sentence is unclear due to the passive voice, as are the reasons for sending him to that particular school.
    • I tried to clarify this. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC))

--Laser brain (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support now. I've done some more work on the prose, especially in the latter half which tends to get less attention. It looks good to me, although I've been through it several times and might be blind to further problems. --Laser brain (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support. EDIT: Struck pending resolution of new concerns. Steve ^T • C I've had this watchlisted for a while now. The main issues at the last FAC were legitimate prose niggles; it's had a lot of attention since then by the nominator and several other editors, and it's looking good now. The issue over the $100 million claim for Fritz the Cat is more or less resolved with the addition of the new source that backs up Variety (though it would be interesting to find out why those other sources said something different.) Glad to see this one back here and passing muster. Nice work, Steve ^T • C 10:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Incredibly, I've encountered many mainstream journalists who don't understand the differences between gross and profit, nor worldwide and domestic, and so on. They don't let this misunderstanding stop them from writing about films. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) The article's generally quite good, although there are bits and pieces that can be improved. Here are a few comments:

• "and would often dig through trash cans to get ahold of them"-->and often dug through trash cans to get a hold of them
• "At the age of eight, Bakshi overheard a loud noise while sleeping at a friend's house, and later learned that a neighbor had committed suicide after murdering his unfaithful wife." This seems like a random fact. Did this incident affect him in any way (his work, life, relationships)?
• "Schudde was surprised that Bakshi was still arriving at work" I'm probably being dense, but what does it mean to "arriv[e] at work"?
• "Elaine disliked his work hours, which often left Mark in the care of Ralph's mother." Not as clear as it could be (the hours didn't actually put him in the her care). Maybe "Elaine disliked his [insert adjective here] work hours, which meant that Mark often had to be left in the care of Ralph's mother."
• "an argument ensued between the three, with Schudde eventually taking Bakshi's side." The noun + -ing construction is awkward. See Tony1's excellent guide on how to fix this issue.
• "Bakshi wanted to leave Terrytoons in order to form his own organization"
• "Although Hampft was prepared to offer Bakshi a severance, Bakshi immediately ripped up the papers." What "papers" are being referred to here? Don't assume readers will know.
• "to learn Crumb's distinctive style in order to prove that he coul" Those two words will almost always be redundant. Scan the rest of the article for them.
• "After pitching the film to every studio in town, Warner Bros. bought the film and promised an $850,000 budget." I think you meant "After Bakshi pitched the film to every studio in town..." (otherwise it sounds like Warner Bros. was pitching the film).
• "Arkoff threatened to pull the film's budget unless Krantz rehired Bakshi, who returned a week later." What does it mean to "pull a budget"? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• "Bakshi described Coonskin as his best film." Could this be cast more concisely as "Bakshi called Coonskin his best film."? (you can't really describe something as the best) If so, you might consider putting quotes around "his best film" (or whatever the source text says). Dabomb87 (talk) 01:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Fails 1a. While major improvements have been made to the article since its previous nomination, the quality of the writing still does not meet our standards. Here's some examples, just from the first section of the main text:

• "Ralph became fascinated with the city's structure". What does this mean? He became fascinated with the city's architecture? With its neighborhoods and other aspects of land use? With its political and economic structure?
• "At the age of eight, Bakshi overheard a loud noise while sleeping at a friend's house, and later learned that a neighbor had committed suicide after murdering his unfaithful wife". As Dabomb87 noted above, this anecdote is presented without any suggestion that it is significant to Bakshi's later life and career. If no such significance can be explicated, the anecdote should be cut.
• "Ralph's father and uncle traveled to Washington D.C. in search of new business opportunities". If there is going to be a reference to "new business opportunities", we should previously have been given some idea what sort of business Bakshi's father was involved in.
• "Because Bakshi felt that it was not fair for him to walk several miles every day to attend Greenleaf Elementary School while all of his friends attended segregated schools..." Awkward introduction of Greenleaf Elementary School, which--if it was, as we are forced to presume, an all-white school--was itself a segregated school. It is also strange to give the name of the school where his attendance was unremarkable, but not the name of the school where his attendance was exceptional.
• "While most of the students had no problem with Bakshi's attending the school, the teacher sought advice from the principal". The school just had one teacher?
• "Suspecting that segregated whites would riot if they learned that a white student was attending a black school..." Did the police really "suspect" this possibility? I suspect they "feared" it or were "concerned" by it.
• "Meanwhile, Ralph's father had been experiencing anxiety attacks and stress". Most people experience stress. Perhaps we can do without that datum.
• "Within a few months, Ralph's mother sold their store". Store? What store? Where did this store suddenly come from?
• "At the age of 15, Bakshi took up cartooning as a means of detailing his experiences". Better to say he took up cartooning as a means of "recording" or "communicating" his experiences.
• "Because the principal viewed Bakshi as a troublesome student who was unlikely to succeed, he transferred Ralph to Manhattan's School of Industrial Art as a last resort". Very ungainly. We've just read evidence that Bakshi was a troublesome student--that's how he wound up before the principal; the notion doesn't need to be explicitly articulated here. And what does the hyped-up phrase "as a last resort" add to our understanding? Note also the infelicitous switch from "Bakshi" to "Ralph" in this sentence--a problem that runs through the entire section.

Again, all these points are from just the first, relatively brief section of the main text. Similar 1a deficiencies appear throughout the article. DocKino (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Tony (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)—Unprofessional appearance in the extreme over-referencing. The prose looks ok.

• "Adult-oriented productions" sounds dirty. But I guess it doesn't mean that.
• 1 1 1 1 1 – and more. This is way over-referenced. I've removed a few of the redundant numbers from the lead. Please audit the rest for repeated numbers every sentence. It's disruptive and unnecessary (unless there's a contentious statement). The next one to go comes after "mistakes"; there are NINE [5]s in a row. Please audit throughout. Then I see 25 [11]s in a row. Come on, please. Tony (talk) 08:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

PS It is a different matter when different page references are provided sentence-by-sentence from the same source. See Siward, Earl of Northumbria, reviewed below, for a good example. Tony (talk) 09:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't believe that "over-referencing" is a problem that is major enough to warrant an opposition. I think you're nit-picking. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC))

I do think it is. See the discussion overleaf. Tony (talk) 05:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I added alt text to the lead. Can someone please add it for the remaining images? Alt text is required for FA status, for accessibility by the visually impaired. Please see the "alt text" button in the toolbox at the upper right of this review article, and please see WP:ALT for advice about alt text. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Has anyone pinged DocKino for a revisit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Note Consider me a Support if Dockino withdraws his oppose. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Revisit Ten days ago I recorded my opposition based on an appraisal of the article's continuing, substantial 1a problems. I noted, in bullet-point style, ten issues in the first section of the main text alone (plus the unbulleted issue of the recurrent, unmotivated switching back and forth between "Ralph" and "Bakshi"). In the ten days since, not the slightest effort has been made to address the issues I raised. And, as I noted, similar 1a deficiencies appear throughout the article; these, too have been left unaddressed. Here are some examples, from just the first paragraph of the second section of the main text:

• "Bakshi commuted for four hours a day to arrive at the offices, where he had begun work as a cel polisher." This simple thought is expressed in as clunky a manner as possible. Try this: "Bakshi commuted four hours a day to the studio, where he worked as a cel polisher." (Or, to more accurately reflect the chronology: "Bakshi was hired as a cell polisher; he commuted four hours a day to the studio.")
• "He carefully removed dirt and dust from animation cels as a base level position." This is not idiomatic English. What the writer means is: "In this low-level position, he carefully removed dirt and dust from animation cels." Or this: "The low-level position required Bakshi to carefully remove dirt and dust from animation cels."
• "After a few months, Schudde was surprised that Bakshi was still showing up to work, and promoted him to cel painter. While employed as a cel painter, Bakshi began to practice animating, sneaking ten of the cels that he was given into the "to-do" pile of a neighboring cel painter, Leo Giuliani, in order to give himself additional time to practice animating." The writer has managed to unnecessarily repeat "cel painter" in the span of eight words and "to practice animating" in the span of one run-on sentence.

Given the continuing, extensive prose issues with the article, which the nominator has completely ignored for the past week and a half, I must maintain my opposition. DocKino (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as it's so close, if the nominator doesn't incorporate your suggestions—or offer a rebuttal of them—I'll take a stab at the remaining 1a objections tomorrow. Steve ^T • C 22:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you please also add alt text while you're at it? It's needed for criterion 3, and is easy to add. Please see "alt text" in the comments above. Eubulides (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll have a swing at that. Here's my first attempt at one. I'll look at the others shortly; stop me if I'm making things worse. :-) Steve ^T • C 09:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, they're ready for another look. Most are simple city skylines, so shouldn't require much more attention. One is a patent drawing for rotoscoping, the alt text for which I've deliberately kept simple despite the image's detail; opinions on this one in particular would be appreciated. All the best, Steve ^T • C 10:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it's excellent. For future reference, alt text doesn't have to be quite that long; many readers prefer it briefer (as was already done in the infobox image). But some do prefer it longer and I wouldn't bother to trim it unless asked. Eubulides (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. There are several sections that reply completely or almost completely on a single source. I do not know if this is in the "spirit" of 1c. For example, these three sections are sequential: Unproduced projects and retirement (1983–86) and Return to television (1987–89) and Return to film, continued television projects and retirement (1990–present) and rely very heavily on Ref 36. —mattisse (Talk) 19:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Very well done so far with the copyedit, Steve. If you had the the inclination, energy, and time to go through the whole article as you've done to this point, there's no question it would be FA-worthy. DocKino (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • You're welcome. I think I've covered the specific points you raised above, with the exception of those that will probably require the nominator's access to the offline sources. For clarity, these are: the need to work out what "Ralph became fascinated with the city's structure" is referring to; what the "business opportunities" were; a note about the previously-unmentioned family store; and the description of Bakshi's job that has his removing "dirt and dust from animation cels as a base level position". I'm not entirely sure whether "base level position" refers to Bakshi, or the cels in preparation for another procedure. As for a further copyedit, I can go through the rest of the article for similar issues, though it wouldn't be before pr/ar tomorrow, and I don't know how much longer this is going to be given. With all these issues in mind, if I can't find the time to get it up to snuff by precisely this time tomorrow, I'll switch to neutral. Steve ^T • C 00:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• I just found a substantive conflict between the lead section and the main text. The lead states, "Beginning his career at the Terrytoons studio as a cel polisher, he eventually became the studio's Director of Animation." The main text identifies Bakshi as having held several jobs at Terrrytoons, including "director" and, for The Mighty Heroes, "creative director", but nowhere refers to the title "Director of Animation". The terminology needs to be reconciled and/or corrected by someone with access to the sources. DocKino (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Another substantive problem, in the Heavy Traffic section: The Street Arabs project is introduced, then disappears without explanation. This only takes a sentence to address, but again, we need someone with access to the sources. DocKino (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Street Arabs is a poem Bakshi wrote preceding the production of Heavy Traffic. It's clearly stated in the article. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC))
    • It was not clearly stated in the article--thus the problem. Now it is. Terrific. DocKino (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• All of DocKino's issues with the article have been clarified. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

• I'm perfectly capable of speaking for myself, Mr. 24. Yes, these two substantive issues have been resolved, but the article still requires a significant amount of copyediting. However, with Steve's yeoman work making it readable, and the final polishing I'm doing in his wake, the end is actually in sight. And you should stay available, as well--I found these two substantive issues after poring over only the first third of the article. That leaves two-thirds to go. DocKino (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Another substantive issue (still in the first third): According to the second paragraph of the Fritz the Cat section, Bakshi always foresaw--as a purely aesthetic choice--that the film would use backgrounds derived from traced photographs: "Preparation began on a studio pitch that included a poster-sized cel featuring the comic's cast against a traced photo background—as Bakshi intended the film to appear." However, the fourth paragraph relates how this "major breakthrough" occurred in response to "production limitations". Which is it? It could plausibly be both--if the limitations made Bakshi's initial preference the only possible approach--but that would need to be stated clearly. Please check the sources. DocKino (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Clarity. The reference to Gene Deitch should be clearer. The article states that as Bakshi "perfected his animation style, he began to take on more jobs, including creating design tests for Gene Deitch." Deitch was apparently the head of Terrytoons into 1958 (though the article currently gives no hint of this). Please check the sources--did Bakshi do these "design tests" while Deitch was still at Terrytoons or after he had left? If the latter, do the sources indicate for what project or company the tests were created? DocKino (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• The sources do not indicate the project. It was for Terrytoons. Why would another studio be discussed in the middle of a paragraph on Terrytoons? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC))
  • Have you ever heard of moonlighting? That is a possible reason why. The failure to properly identify Deitch is what led to the confusion. DocKino (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Another substantive issue. The discussion of Wizards says Bakshi "return[ed] to the fantasy drawings he had created in high school for inspiration." The earlier discussion of his high school–era drawing makes no mention, however, of fantasy material. In terms of content, all we have is the fact that "at the age of 15, Bakshi took up cartooning to document his experiences." Reference to the fantasy drawing needs to be added to the high school section. Please check the sources to see how this would best be characterized. DocKino (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Another substantive issue. The coverage of The Lord of the Rings is four paragraphs long. Toward the beginning of the first, we learn that Bakshi took over the project from John Boorman, who was planning to adapt the entire story in one film. Only in the fourth paragraph do we learn that Bakshi's version was an "incomplete story". This structure obviously doesn't work, and crucial information is missing: When was it decided that Bakshi would do a multipart version? As soon as he took over, or during production? How much of the story does the movie tell--the first-third (which would be in line with the original trilogy and the later Peter Jackson film versions)? About half? More than half? Again, we need direct reference to the sources. DocKino (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• An inadvertent plagiarism query. The following passage sounds like it might well have been lifted straight from the source: Junktown "focused on misfit technology and discarded ideals". Ibaranoff, could you please quote us the relevant passage from Gibson and McDonnell, so we can verify the status of this phrasing? DocKino (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yep, there's a problem. The same phrasing pops up in a Bakshi quote from years later, concerning a TV special based on Junktown: "We were trying something different—discarded ideals, misfit technology—but a series didn't make sense." To avoid plagiarism, which is what we currently have, please rephrase the earlier passage as appropriate OR quote it and clearly attribute it. Now, are you sure you haven't similarly misused your sources elsewhere in the article? Such cases usually don't appear in isolation. Ibaranoff, please go through the entire article and make sure you haven't introduced any other instances of inadvertent plagiarism.DocKino (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• A major structural concern. There is great inconsistency in how the critical reception of Bakshi's feature films is treated. For instance, four contemporary reviews of Coonskin are quoted; similarly, five contemporary reviews of The Lord of the Rings are quoted. On the other hand, the only reference to Heavy Traffic's reception is that "Vincent Canby of The New York Times ranked [it] among his 'Ten Best Films of 1973'". As for Wizards, American Pop, and Fire and Ice, not a single critical opinion from the time of their respective releases is cited. The balance does not have to be exact, but for a Featured Article it has to be significantly better than this. DocKino (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm doing the best to reflect the sources I have. I cannot go farther than that when the materials are limited. Do you expect me to go back in time and grab several major newspapers? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC))
    • You are expected to structure the article so there is a sensible balance in the coverage of the films' critical reception. You are not expected to go back in time. You are expected to perform research and writing commensurate with a Featured Article if you seek that status. Are you claiming that it is not possible with reasonable effort—online, at the library—to find any contemporary reviews of Heavy Traffic, Wizards, American Pop, and Fire and Ice? That's not credible.DocKino (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I just used my magical time machine and found some contemporary Heavy Traffic reviews from major publications. Got one for Hey Good Lookin as well. See, it can be done. You can take care of the remaining three films, right? DocKino (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• A query. In the "Unproduced projects and retirement" section, one passage reads, "Bakshi Productions crewmembers worked on cartoon takes concerning pulp fiction". What does that mean? Please explicate here or directly rephrase for clarity in the article. DocKino (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Exactly what you think it means. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC))
    • I have told you I don't know what it means. Do try not to be a jerk. What are "cartoon takes"? What does it mean that they "concern[ed]" pulp fiction? Did these "takes" relate to Bakshi and Zingarelli's projected feature about Golden Age Hollywood or not? The language you have used here is not idiomatic, so your intended meaning is entirely unclear. DocKino (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• For the opening section of the main text, it would still be good to know what sort of "business opportunities" Bakshi's father and uncle were pursuing and what sort of "store" the family owned in Washington. We should also have the maiden names of his two wives, Elaine and Liz. DocKino (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't know them. The sources don't have them. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC))

• Something else should also be made clear, if possible. The article tells us that Bakshi asked Geisel (Seuss) to storyboard The Butter Battle Book. Did Geisel actually do so? DocKino (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Connection between lead section and main text. The second sentence of the lead claims that "the American animation industry declined in the 1960s and 1970s", but there is simply no discussion of or support for this claim in the main text. The closest we get is that Paramount closed its animation division in 1967, but that in of itself is hardly indicative of an industry-wide decline. Either the lead needs to be recast or the main text needs to be amplified on this point. DocKino (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Clipped. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC))

• Both Steve and I have now gone through the entire article. If the issues I've raised above are properly addressed, I can switch to support. DocKino (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Still another issue. The "Return to television" section gives two very different interpretations of Bakshi's experience with Nickelodeon, which many readers are likely not to realize refer to the exact same production. Paragraph 4 refers to Christmas in Tattertown and quotes Bakshi to the effect that the projected series for which it was originally intended as a pilot "didn't make sense. It just didn't work." Paragraph 6 informs us that though "Nickelodeon had initially been willing to greenlight 39 episodes of Junktown, the Wildmon controversy led the project to be renamed and eventually abandoned." I was able to add a bit to paragraph 4 to make matters clearer, but my access to relevant sources is limited. The rest is up to you. Please recast this section as appropriate so the discussion of the Nickelodeon project is coherent and clear. In particular, we need to be clear about this: Was the series abandoned because "it just didn't work"? Or because of the Wildmon controversy? Or is that an unresolved question? DocKino (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• On the lack of information on some of the films: a 1983 Ocala Star-Banner article from the time has something to say about American Pop and Fire and Ice; it fills the gap in the coverage of the latter's commercial reception ("failed to catch on") as well as including something of Bakshi's response to that. It also includes an interesting couple of quotes about Bakshi's opinion of the market for animated films, as well as his assertion that he was abandoning them in favour of live-action. The piece also contains the curious statement that American Pop was a financial failure, which conflicts with the statement in this article. In addition to all that, there's a 1983 Christian Science Monitor capsule review of Fire and Ice that might be of some use. Oh, and this turned up too, another Ocala Star-Banner article, this one a profile piece. Very interesting and of definite use, it also tells us that Fire and Ice was a "critical and commercial failure". Steve ^T • C 19:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. OK, so I initially let my support stand as I hoped that DocKino's concerns could be resolved quickly. That hasn't turned out to be the case, so I've regretfully struck it for now. In addition to those issues, a five minute check revealed the sources I've listed just above this statement, so there's definite scope for fleshing out these niggly gaps in the coverage if a more comprehensive source search could be performed. I'm also a little concerned at the huge reliance on Unfiltered: The Complete Ralph Bakshi, which the Los Angeles Times called "a sloppily written paean that reads like the product of a vanity press" and "a superficial apologia"—looking at it again with those eyes, I can sort of see what their reviewer means. Almost none of the problems with Bakshi's career are attributed to the man himself; an excuse is always made for the critical failure of this, the commercial disappointment of that. With a whopping 95 cites to this book, we need to be sure we're not just parroting a puff piece. Steve ^T • C 20:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment That was my concern above. At the time it was ref 36, but it is now ref 37. Way too many references to a single source, Unfiltered: The Complete Ralph Bakshi, unleavened with other sources. —mattisse (Talk) 20:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Ah, you already did say that, sorry. I missed your comment due to the flurry of posts from DocKino; had I seen it, I'd certainly have checked the source sooner. Steve ^T • C 21:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• • So, you're going to take the word of one reviewer who doesn't know what he's talking about over the established consensus that Unfiltered is a better source than anything else? Any reviewer referring to the book as a "puff piece" is clearly trying to slam Bakshi. There's absolutely no puffery in the book or this article. Everything written is factual and neutral. Opposing the FAC of what is clearly one of the best articles on Wikipedia is one of the biggest mistakes you will ever make on here. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC))
    • Ibaranoff? Is that a threat of some kind? I'm having trouble understanding this behavior when DocKino and Steve seem interested in improving the article and helping it pass. Why antagonize? Bad form. --Andy Walsh (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Sourcing issues - I have some concerns about the sources, but I have not been able to check them as most of the sources are to a single offline source. Mostly, I am wondering about them because of number. For example, one source is "22-25; 28-29". Two pages are missing and yet information is presented as linear. The information that follows the first paragraph is cited to the same book but much later "pp. 106; 108-109; 114". That is a 70+ page gap in what amounts to only 8 years later in time. Since this is childhood years, I would not expect a 70 page gap to account for 8 years (or be that in-depth over those 8 years). Ottava Rima (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't have access to the Gibson and McDonnell book either, but there's not necessarily a problem here. It appears that the book is unsually organized. The references to pages 22–25, 28–29, as you can see, are to the chapter on "Brownsville", Bakshi's primary childhood home. The references to pages 106, 108–109, 114 are to the chapter on Bakshi's film Coonskin, which deals with issues of racism and the African American experience--apparently the authors treat his few months living in a black neighborhood in Washington, D.C., and his encounters with racial prejudice in that chapter. Thus the book's coverage of his D.C. period is placed thematically rather than chronologically. (As for the "missing pages", I imagine they are devoted to images, rather than text.) DocKino (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• I would like to get independent verification of the book and then for the passages to be checked. This is not standard for academic biographies. According to the Amazon reviews, the work seems to contain a lot of art and is more of a tribute than biography, which gives me doubts about the content. I will try to hunt down a copy unless someone can get to one first. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Good for your Ottava. As you say, this is not a standard biography. It appears to me to be based on Bakshi's memories (the police dragging him out of a classroom, etc.) and there are close to 100 references in the article to that one book (which is only 280 pages long and full of graphics). —mattisse (Talk) 19:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• For context on how the book is organised, this video may be of use. :-) The additional review quotes that call this a "tribute", along with the comments of Stephen Worth of ASIFA ("It's just pictures, pictures and more pictures ... along with just enough text to put them in context") in addition to the LA Times review I cited in my "oppose" statement, all make it clear that the use of this source needs to be considered very carefully. Steve ^T • C 19:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I toned down the segments on Fire and Ice and American Pop. I disagree with these statements. There is a lot of biographical information in the book, and it is cataloged as a biography in my local library. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC))
    • Indeed there is a lot that can be gleaned from the book, and in no way am I suggesting that it shouldn't be used, just that care should be taken to make sure its highly positive tone isn't reflected in this article—which is where more neutral citations can come in for support. Steve ^T • C 21:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
      • And keeping in mind that it is not a standard biography and appears to lack a bibliography and notes on sources. Perhaps the book makes it clear specifically from where the biographical and other information comes from. —mattisse (Talk) 21:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
        • I'll be wandering the stacks of a reasonably-sized library tomorrow, as it happens. It seems to have been released in the UK, so I'll see if I can find a copy; barring that, perhaps I can at least look at it in one of the larger bookstore chains. Steve ^T • C 21:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• I strongly feel that the article is neutral. I also feel that Unfiltered does not over-praise Bakshi to the point of puffery, and that the reviewer who described the book as such may have been biased against Bakshi. Also, I had absolutely no intention of threatening anyone, I was merely being arrogant. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC))

• That's lovely. But... It's been more than three days now, and you still have done nothing to address the major issue of the article's failure to deal with the contemporary critical reception of Wizards, American Pop, and Fire and Ice. It's been more than two and a half days now, and you still have done nothing to clarify the unintelligible statement about "cartoon takes concerning pulp fiction". It's been more than two and a half days now, and you still have done nothing to reconcile and consolidate the discussion of the Nickelodeon Junktown/Tattertown project.
• As for Unfiltered, you have said that the Los Angles Times reviewer who called it "a sloppily written paean that reads like the product of a vanity press" and ""a superficial apologia", in your carefully considered view, "doesn't know what he's talking about". In a pleasant communication you sent directly to Steve, you further explained that said reviewer is an "idiot". That reviewer is Charles Solomon, a well-established scholar of cinematic animation history, whose books include Enchanted Drawings: The History of Animation and Disney Lost and Found: Exploring the Hidden Artwork from Never-Produced Animation. Please explain how you concluded that Mr. Solomon "doesn't know what he's talking about". In contrast, you have claimed that there is an "established consensus that Unfiltered is a better source than anything else". In your pleasant communication to Steve, you similarly announced that a "majority of film and animation historians" approve of Unfiltered. That's wonderful! Please share with us your evidence for the existence of this "established consensus", your evidence for the positive opinion of the "majority of film and animation historians". Obviously, you must have access to many favorable reviews of the book by scholars much better respected than that ignorant, biased Mr. Solomon. Please direct us to those reviews so we can resolve this issue forthwith. DocKino (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I thought that I did resolve the issues regarding those films. I rewrote the pulp fiction statement. The source is used neutrally, and doesn't have to be considered. And Charles Solomon doesn't know what he's talking about. His books are riddled with false statements and are poorly-researched, and he's very biased against Bakshi. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC))

• In The Animated Movie Guide, Jerry Beck states that Wizards and American Pop were successful while discussing Hey Good Lookin'. Adding Beck's book as a citation should clear up any concerns of puffery. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC))

• There is still zero progress on addressing the contemporary critical reception of Wizards, American Pop, and Fire and Ice. There is still zero progress on reconciling and consolidating the discussion of the Nickelodeon Junktown/Tattertown project. We must assume your claims that Solomon's "books are riddled with false statements and are poorly-researched, and he's very biased against Bakshi" are as baseless as your claims that an "established consensus" and a "majority of film and animation historians" regard Unfiltered as a superb source. Given your continuing failure to provide a shred of evidence for these imaginative claims, yes, please do continue to seek out additional sourcing for the article. DocKino (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• There is no need to reflect an attitude towards me, considering how long and how thoroughly this article has been researched and edited. There is absolutely no need to add further commentary, nor to remove content from the article just because you say so. You are not the dictator of Wikipedia. Your increasingly negative attitude towards editors and articles you are biased against will not be reflected in the outcome of this FAC. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC))

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