Mom and Dad (1945 film) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 24, 2008. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Editors - inappropriate comments inserted into the article (section just before mention of movie intermission) but they are not visible in the edit to remove —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.130.233 ( talk) 07:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Well written, interesting. Responded to all comments in multiple reviews. Congratulations. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I know Wikipedia is not meant to be a place to advertise films for sale, but given the significance of this film and what seems to me to be no online source for the film for sale, I'd like to ask if anyone knows how an individual might get a copy of it? It must exist, it was entered into the National Film Registry in 2005, and in August 2001 clips of it was released on the DVD set "Sex and Buttered Popcorn". I know it wouldn't have a very big market but given it's significnce there would be some market for it, at least among educators and film buffs. Does anyone know if the copyright is even still valid or if it's in the public domain? If it's in the public domain, I suppose it could be legally copied and shared, although one still has to find a copy somewhere. -- User:ssc
I hate to say this since I know you've worked hard on it, but it's too similar to Kroger Babb. Most of this article seems to be just a copy and paste job from that one. This article really seems to focus too much on Babb's roll, rather then being about the movie itself. I realize that the movie is what it is and had the impact it did because of him, but surely there's got to be something you can say about it that you haven't already said in his article? I don't want to suggest that you cut information on this film from his article, since it seems to have been such a pivital part of his career; but now that Kroger Babb is a FA, imagine if it was on the front page. Someone who knows nothing about him would start reading it, get curious about Mom and Dad, come here to read this article, and find themselves reading virtually the same text as on Kroger Babb's article. See the problem?
Perhaps if you discussed some of the other people who were invovled in it; did it have a big impact on One Shot's career? What about the cast? Did this movie help their careers? Hurt them?
I'm sure you see what I'm saying. ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) 15:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
This article needs a lot of work, done in conjunction with more work on the article on Kroger Babb (yes, again).
It seems clear that the (feeble) story is about a girl. But is she June Carlson or Joan Blake? If there's reason for ambiguity, explain it.
Yes, ONUnicorn's right. Minimize the overlap between the Babb article and this one (which now look like two versions of the same article, with a number of near-identical sentences). Both have a synopsis of this film. Choose the better synopsis and put it in this article; put a radically shortened one in the article on Babb. Say as little as possible about Babb and his approach in this article; it's in the article on him. Find some way of making the material about Babb's hawking of this film differ between that article and this one.
Don't redlink words and phrases that are unlikely to get articles.
Rearrange the notes from (a) the format to which a couple of people objected while the Babb article was an FAC to (b) the format when that article was made an FA.
Print out the result and go through it slowly with a red pen. The next day, go through it again with a red pen. Then make the changes. Print it out, and go through it slowly with a red pen. Et cetera. -- Hoary 23:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Please fix it -- ~KnowledgeHegemony~ 12:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
-- ~KnowledgeHegemony~ 12:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that there were some malicious edits to the article. not sure how to revert, but it seems like its required —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.111.214 ( talk) 00:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Why is this considered a FA? I've seen tons of better articles. Vinson 01:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
It's a film made by an exploitation film maker... that's what the intro establishes (it also establishes that the film has a genre, which is nice, but doesn't tell us what that genre is). In the middle of the second section we find out that it's about a person and we find out her name. That, perhaps, could come earlier....
In the third section we find out that this is considered a "sex hygiene" film... really useful info to anyone just finding this article!
Honestly, it took me quite a while to figure out what this article was about, other than "a film". - Miskaton ( talk) 02:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
All the featured article says is that it's feature length. How long? MMetro ( talk) 07:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
This claim, that the film is the "third highest-grossing film of the 1940s", needs more citations. As far as I can tell, this is only supported by the Library of Congress press release which contains just 1 paragraph on the film. Certainly a press release, a genre known for its exaggeration, is not solid enough to make such bold statement. I have edited this slightly to say "it is claimed . . ." Madman ( talk) 12:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
"Mom and Dad is believed to have had a number of endings, although most typically concluded with the birth of the girl's child, sometimes stillborn and other times put up for adoption" Does it have multiple endings or not? This says that they may exist, and then gives examples of them as if they do. DocRocktopus ( talk) 23:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
What's next for the main page? Deep Throat? 65.175.152.153 ( talk) 23:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
This interesting article woke me up to the fact that the tremendously successful Hindi film 'Aradhana'(1969), often thought of as an original classic, had borrowed the basic plot from 'Mom and Dad'! Arun Saxena (played by Rajesh Khanna, whose career soared after this film making him Hindi's biggest star till then), a pilot, seduces and beds a naive lass Vandana Tripathi (Sharmila Tagore). He is killed in a plane crash and the bereft, pregnant Vandana is not accepted by his family as they know nothing about the affair. Thereafter the film is a maudlin tear-jerker. AbhijitDe ( talk) 01:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 04:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mom and Dad. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Mom and Dad (1945 film) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 24, 2008. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Editors - inappropriate comments inserted into the article (section just before mention of movie intermission) but they are not visible in the edit to remove —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.130.233 ( talk) 07:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Well written, interesting. Responded to all comments in multiple reviews. Congratulations. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I know Wikipedia is not meant to be a place to advertise films for sale, but given the significance of this film and what seems to me to be no online source for the film for sale, I'd like to ask if anyone knows how an individual might get a copy of it? It must exist, it was entered into the National Film Registry in 2005, and in August 2001 clips of it was released on the DVD set "Sex and Buttered Popcorn". I know it wouldn't have a very big market but given it's significnce there would be some market for it, at least among educators and film buffs. Does anyone know if the copyright is even still valid or if it's in the public domain? If it's in the public domain, I suppose it could be legally copied and shared, although one still has to find a copy somewhere. -- User:ssc
I hate to say this since I know you've worked hard on it, but it's too similar to Kroger Babb. Most of this article seems to be just a copy and paste job from that one. This article really seems to focus too much on Babb's roll, rather then being about the movie itself. I realize that the movie is what it is and had the impact it did because of him, but surely there's got to be something you can say about it that you haven't already said in his article? I don't want to suggest that you cut information on this film from his article, since it seems to have been such a pivital part of his career; but now that Kroger Babb is a FA, imagine if it was on the front page. Someone who knows nothing about him would start reading it, get curious about Mom and Dad, come here to read this article, and find themselves reading virtually the same text as on Kroger Babb's article. See the problem?
Perhaps if you discussed some of the other people who were invovled in it; did it have a big impact on One Shot's career? What about the cast? Did this movie help their careers? Hurt them?
I'm sure you see what I'm saying. ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) 15:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
This article needs a lot of work, done in conjunction with more work on the article on Kroger Babb (yes, again).
It seems clear that the (feeble) story is about a girl. But is she June Carlson or Joan Blake? If there's reason for ambiguity, explain it.
Yes, ONUnicorn's right. Minimize the overlap between the Babb article and this one (which now look like two versions of the same article, with a number of near-identical sentences). Both have a synopsis of this film. Choose the better synopsis and put it in this article; put a radically shortened one in the article on Babb. Say as little as possible about Babb and his approach in this article; it's in the article on him. Find some way of making the material about Babb's hawking of this film differ between that article and this one.
Don't redlink words and phrases that are unlikely to get articles.
Rearrange the notes from (a) the format to which a couple of people objected while the Babb article was an FAC to (b) the format when that article was made an FA.
Print out the result and go through it slowly with a red pen. The next day, go through it again with a red pen. Then make the changes. Print it out, and go through it slowly with a red pen. Et cetera. -- Hoary 23:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Please fix it -- ~KnowledgeHegemony~ 12:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
-- ~KnowledgeHegemony~ 12:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that there were some malicious edits to the article. not sure how to revert, but it seems like its required —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.111.214 ( talk) 00:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Why is this considered a FA? I've seen tons of better articles. Vinson 01:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
It's a film made by an exploitation film maker... that's what the intro establishes (it also establishes that the film has a genre, which is nice, but doesn't tell us what that genre is). In the middle of the second section we find out that it's about a person and we find out her name. That, perhaps, could come earlier....
In the third section we find out that this is considered a "sex hygiene" film... really useful info to anyone just finding this article!
Honestly, it took me quite a while to figure out what this article was about, other than "a film". - Miskaton ( talk) 02:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
All the featured article says is that it's feature length. How long? MMetro ( talk) 07:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
This claim, that the film is the "third highest-grossing film of the 1940s", needs more citations. As far as I can tell, this is only supported by the Library of Congress press release which contains just 1 paragraph on the film. Certainly a press release, a genre known for its exaggeration, is not solid enough to make such bold statement. I have edited this slightly to say "it is claimed . . ." Madman ( talk) 12:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
"Mom and Dad is believed to have had a number of endings, although most typically concluded with the birth of the girl's child, sometimes stillborn and other times put up for adoption" Does it have multiple endings or not? This says that they may exist, and then gives examples of them as if they do. DocRocktopus ( talk) 23:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
What's next for the main page? Deep Throat? 65.175.152.153 ( talk) 23:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
This interesting article woke me up to the fact that the tremendously successful Hindi film 'Aradhana'(1969), often thought of as an original classic, had borrowed the basic plot from 'Mom and Dad'! Arun Saxena (played by Rajesh Khanna, whose career soared after this film making him Hindi's biggest star till then), a pilot, seduces and beds a naive lass Vandana Tripathi (Sharmila Tagore). He is killed in a plane crash and the bereft, pregnant Vandana is not accepted by his family as they know nothing about the affair. Thereafter the film is a maudlin tear-jerker. AbhijitDe ( talk) 01:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 04:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mom and Dad. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)