Template:Did you know nominations/Fred G. Sullivan
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Launchballer talk 00:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Fred G. Sullivan
- ... that Fred G. Sullivan's film The Beer-Drinker's Guide to Fitness and Filmmaking depicts Sullivan being whipped as punishment for the failings of his previous movie? Source: "In a flight of fantasy, Fred is trapped in a canoe with a whip-wielding movie critic." (Washington Post)
- ALT1: ... that Fred G. Sullivan's film The Beer-Drinker's Guide to Fitness and Filmmaking depicts Sullivan being humiliated with mud and whips for the failings of his previous film?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Thy Strong Word did Cleave the Darkness
Created by Blameless (talk). Self-nominated at 04:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Fred G. Sullivan; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
Great article and hook; my worry is that the cited source doesn't fully support the hook (it doesn't explicitly mention that he's whipped, or that it's a punishment), and I can't access the other source. Could you provide quotes to the relevant sources that support what is said? Josh Milburn (talk) 09:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, Josh. Yes, I understand the issue, but I couldn't find a review that fully describes the scene; the Times review (which as you say is behind a paywall) mentions half of it and the Post the other. Is it possible to cite the film itself, given that it's available on the internet (posted there by Sullivan's son, so not a copyright violation)? Here is the link at the correct time stamp (warning: brief nudity). blameless 17:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Blameless: If the hook fact is fully cited by a combination of decent sources, that's fine -- could you quote the two 'half' descriptions? While I think the film itself is fine for summaries of the film itself, I'm not sure it passes muster for a reliable source for a DYK hook. (I may be wrong about this, and if there's a discussion or guideline about this somewhere, please do feel free to point me to it.) PS: It might take me a few days to reply. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- @J Milburn: Hmm. The NYT says "The scenes involving the fate of Cold River first show Mr. Sullivan, dressed in a loin cloth with leather straps across his chest, wandering a burning desert with a film can in either hand; this is his idea of what looking for a distributor was like. After that, he is seen in a tuxedo, having mud slung at him as the reviews come in." The Post picks up from essentially a couple of shots later in the same scene: "The one he did make, "Cold River," was a financial and critical calamity. In a flight of fantasy, Fred is trapped in a canoe with a whip-wielding movie critic. Even when Fred finally pushes him overboard, the critic can be heard over the rapids -- " 'Cold River' sucks ... It's the dog of the year." So nobody actually describes the critic reciting reviews as he whips Fred. (There were a bunch of other reviews but they're not online.) Perhaps the hook could be, less specifically, ALT1: ... that Fred G. Sullivan's film The Beer-Drinker's Guide to Fitness and Filmmaking depicts Sullivan being humiliated with mud and whips for the failings of his previous film?" blameless 01:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- Quick passing comment: If you have access to them, you can still cite reviews that are not online. Alternatively/additionally, you may be able to identify someone with access to the right archive (see, e.g., Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange). Josh Milburn (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- The ones I know of and don't have are in smaller newspapers (like the Burlington Free Press) that aren't digitally archived going back that far--it would require a pretty time-consuming microfilm search, which I don't think I'll have time to do. blameless 04:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- No, sorry, I wasn't suggesting that; I thought you were saying you already had access to them! I am happy with alt1; the sources don't specifically mention humilitation, but I think that's strongly suggested. It's an eye-catching hook and a decent article, so I approve. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- The ones I know of and don't have are in smaller newspapers (like the Burlington Free Press) that aren't digitally archived going back that far--it would require a pretty time-consuming microfilm search, which I don't think I'll have time to do. blameless 04:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- Quick passing comment: If you have access to them, you can still cite reviews that are not online. Alternatively/additionally, you may be able to identify someone with access to the right archive (see, e.g., Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange). Josh Milburn (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- @J Milburn: Hmm. The NYT says "The scenes involving the fate of Cold River first show Mr. Sullivan, dressed in a loin cloth with leather straps across his chest, wandering a burning desert with a film can in either hand; this is his idea of what looking for a distributor was like. After that, he is seen in a tuxedo, having mud slung at him as the reviews come in." The Post picks up from essentially a couple of shots later in the same scene: "The one he did make, "Cold River," was a financial and critical calamity. In a flight of fantasy, Fred is trapped in a canoe with a whip-wielding movie critic. Even when Fred finally pushes him overboard, the critic can be heard over the rapids -- " 'Cold River' sucks ... It's the dog of the year." So nobody actually describes the critic reciting reviews as he whips Fred. (There were a bunch of other reviews but they're not online.) Perhaps the hook could be, less specifically, ALT1: ... that Fred G. Sullivan's film The Beer-Drinker's Guide to Fitness and Filmmaking depicts Sullivan being humiliated with mud and whips for the failings of his previous film?" blameless 01:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Blameless: If the hook fact is fully cited by a combination of decent sources, that's fine -- could you quote the two 'half' descriptions? While I think the film itself is fine for summaries of the film itself, I'm not sure it passes muster for a reliable source for a DYK hook. (I may be wrong about this, and if there's a discussion or guideline about this somewhere, please do feel free to point me to it.) PS: It might take me a few days to reply. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, Josh. Yes, I understand the issue, but I couldn't find a review that fully describes the scene; the Times review (which as you say is behind a paywall) mentions half of it and the Post the other. Is it possible to cite the film itself, given that it's available on the internet (posted there by Sullivan's son, so not a copyright violation)? Here is the link at the correct time stamp (warning: brief nudity). blameless 17:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Alt1. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks! blameless 04:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
The article currently does not support the "best-known film" or the "mud" of ALT1. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29:I've added the mud to the article, per the same sources already cited (NYT mentions the mud). Not sure I see the problem with "best-known film," though? He only had two, and one was a failure and one was a success. The lede says "remembered primarily" for Beer-Drinker's Guide. Can you be more specific about the issue? Thanks. blameless 02:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- That needs to be cited, whether it's in the lead or body. For all I know, his university film Of Rivers and Men might have become a cult classic. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29: Got it. I've added a line about the film's afterlife. I guess I don't have a source that bothers to say explicitly that the others are no longer available--it is implied through silence. Of Rivers and Men did have an influence, in fact--I've added more about that, to clarify--but I don't think it's been shown publicly since the 70s (not sure if Kirk has a copy on film). Anyway, I don't think "best-known film" is essential for the hook, so it can be replaced with "film" if the facts here are too murky. Thanks. blameless 01:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29: Got it. I've added a line about the film's afterlife. I guess I don't have a source that bothers to say explicitly that the others are no longer available--it is implied through silence. Of Rivers and Men did have an influence, in fact--I've added more about that, to clarify--but I don't think it's been shown publicly since the 70s (not sure if Kirk has a copy on film). Anyway, I don't think "best-known film" is essential for the hook, so it can be replaced with "film" if the facts here are too murky. Thanks. blameless 01:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- That needs to be cited, whether it's in the lead or body. For all I know, his university film Of Rivers and Men might have become a cult classic. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29:I've added the mud to the article, per the same sources already cited (NYT mentions the mud). Not sure I see the problem with "best-known film," though? He only had two, and one was a failure and one was a success. The lede says "remembered primarily" for Beer-Drinker's Guide. Can you be more specific about the issue? Thanks. blameless 02:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
