Talk:Animal Crackers (1930 film)/GA2: Difference between revisions

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Jm307 (talk · contribs) 19:45, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 21:21, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

Initial observations

• @Jm307: The lead still fails to summarize the main points. For example, you don’t mention the censored 1936 reissue in the third paragraph, but instead talk about later influences, which should probably moved to the fourth paragraph. In addition to the lead, there’s a slight disconnect between the censorship of the 1936 release and two later sections. For example, you don’t talk about this in the “1930 release and 1936 re-release” section, but allude to it as “several small cuts to accommodate the Production Code”, which is frankly a bit weird, because you did talk about it in the previous production section, where it doesn’t really fit. After all, the censorship occurred years after the production. I realize these are pretty minor issues, but they do stand out on a re-read. There’s a lack of unity in terms of just this one issue. Figure out how to handle the re-issue and censorship in the lead. While unusual, it does look like censorship should be moved out of production and into the 1936 re-release section. Etc.
• “It established several of the Marx Brothers’ most famous comedic routines.” Is this supported in the body?
• Why is there still a source citation in the last paragraph of the lead?
• Duplication of restoration info in multiple sections seems odd. It’s mentioned in the lead (good), then in the censorship section under production (not convinced it should be here), then briefly mentioned again in “Rights issues and 1974 re-release” and “Home media”. It does feel like it deserves its own section or move to another, perhaps home media, as the restoration occurred that same year as the release. Looking online, there is a lot more to say about the restoration process that doesn’t appear here.
  • Thanks! I’m going to try responding to your comments more quickly this time, to see if that makes a better review. To your points:
  • I’ve changed the lead to match your suggestion, and consolidated discussion of censorship and restoration in the re-releases in the appropriate release section.
  • There’s a ton to say about the restoration process, but I didn’t want to turn the article into a trivia dumping ground (e.g., listing *all* of the restored censor cuts). Were there particularly interesting bits that you thought should be included?
  • Re: “It established several of the Marx Brothers’ most famous comedic routines.” – the text talks about the songs (“Hooray for Captain Spaulding”; “Hello I Must Be Going”; “I’m Daffy Over You”) and the quote in the AFI top 100. I guess these are only routines if you squint hard at them. “famous comedic bits” sounded a bit off. Maybe “famous parts of their repertoire”?
  • There was a source citation in the lead because, the information being only one sentence, I didn’t think it was worth including elsewhere. I’ve duplicated it in the release section with the citation, and removed the citation in the lead.

References