Talk:Loving You (1957 film)

Fair use rationale for image updated. --Northmeister 16:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 19:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at

User:RM bot

07:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)]]

--George Ho (talk) 07:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Loving You (1957 film)/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zanimum (talk · contribs) 21:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks solid at first glance, I'll review it. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to post a review tomorrow morning. -- Zanimum (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for dilly-dallying. Here's a bit of the review. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Passing infobox.

Lead

• While Paramount is mentioned as distributor just to the side of the lead, in the infobox, I'd mention them in the third paragraph, when you're introducing the Presley Pattern. While it was a middling film for Elvis, it really can be deemed one of the landmarks in cinema distribution, Paramount deserves credit.

Cast

• What's with the strange formatting? I've honestly never seen formatting like this. Why not hyphens, or the word "as"?

Soundtrack

• Normally I'd quibble about the inclusion of a fair use audio file on a movie page, but since it doesn't appear in the album's article, and there's no solo article about the song, I'll allow it.

Release and reception

• In the lead, it's the "Elvis Presley pattern", here it's the "Presley pattern". Does it differ between Hall and Hall/Neale? I believe full text of Variety for that era is on Google Books, if they're website is only reviews... it would be worth digging into a period primary source to help decide.

Reviews

• Overall, kudos on the section. Nothing to contest about the prose or organization of this section. I'm quite impressed by the "Evaluation in film guides"; you're likely not the first, but I've never seen this in a film article before. Certainly helps lend a modern view on the film.
• What I would suggest though is to try and dig for a couple more period reviews of the film. There's got to be something more. To be clear, this is a longer-term goal, not something needed to gain a GA pass.

Assessment

Opening comments

Excuse the strange formatting, after I nominated the article some edits were made by other users that affected the format, and I had to repair some of that. With that being said, full credit of the Evaluation in film guides section goes to Roman Spinner, I just added the citations to the more than useful material he added.

Lead

• Paramount linked. Y

Release and reception

• Neal and Hall/Neal call it the "Presley Pattern". Period sources from the 60s also refer to it as the "Presley Pattern", while I also found a source from 1970 that calls it the "Elvis Presley Pattern". Guess we could settle with "Presley Pattern".--GDuwenTell me! 16:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

• I'm a strong supporter of adding period review to this sort of articles. Initial reviews and further reviewing through the years help to get a better understanding of the subject. Problem is, as usual, period reviewing is not so easy to find (that's the moment I think of getting a subscription of something like newspapers.com). I added two new ones, guess that the one by
  Down Beat offers the most interesting material.--GDuwenTell me! 16:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Placing this back in the queue, since it's yet another one of Zanimum's abandoned reviews. Wizardman 14:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that, waiting now for a new reviewer then.--GDuwenTell me! 22:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Loving You (1957 film)/GA2

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 23:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. I will try to have some notes tonight, but I will probably not be able to complete the review for a day or two. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "before convincing him to for the broadcast": looks like a partly edited sentence.
• "While the concert is delayed, fans defend Deke's music, being shot by local newscasters": this is a bit clumsy; can you rephrase?
• I'm a bit surprised the article isn't longer; I'm no expert on Presley, but I would have expected that by his third film there would be enough sources to fill out a good deal more in the production section, for example. Can you comment on whether there's more that could be added? GA doesn't require that an article be comprehensive, but it does require broad coverage.

-- The prose is good enough; I tweaked a couple of things -- please revert if I screwed anything up. The sources look good. I don't have any of them so can't check for close paraphrasing. The images are OK; can't say I'm crazy about the quality, but that's not your fault. The clip from the song is OK because there's no separate article about the song itself, though if you do create that article I think the clip should be removed from this article. I had a look on newspapers.com for reviews and found nothing worth adding. I'll place the nomination on hold while you respond to my questions above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 05:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, there is not much about the production. Most of the rest of the information that I found about it are anecdotes that are not really interesting for the article. Since this film was merely a vehicle for Elvis, and a "quickie" (filmed in less than two months), I guess that makes it enough for a GA coverage of the topic. Needless to say, if I'm able to find more about it in the future, I'll be more than glad to expand it. Maybe it is that Elvis had so much things going back in 57' that most of his biographers so far didn't pay no mind to Loving You, or that there was not much more to say about it.--GDuwenTell me! 18:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made one more tweak. Looks good; passing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Loving You (1957 film). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150904113955/http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?artist=%22Presley%2C+Elvis%22 to http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?artist=%22Presley%2C+Elvis%22

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.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that, since the character names are not specified in either the opening or closing credits, their form in the article's cast list is taken from various resources, primarily AFI Catalog of Feature Films and IMDb, as well as from personal viewing of this film by editors. For the record, below is a reproduction of the cast listing in the opening credits:

          Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]