Talk:Animal Crackers (1930 film)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Animal Crackers (1930 film)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

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

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

Show this table to see outstanding issues.

Spot check

#	Ref	Comments	Result
1	Cohn 1990, p. M-144	This is left over from before I started editing this page. I don't have access to it, but the seems to be quoted around the web and wikipedia as a source for box office numbers. (Thank you for noting that. I will look for a copy -V. Update: I was able to find a copy and verified the info. FWIW, the article begins on M-140)	checked
2	Mitchell 1996, p. 16	This does identify the character as Abe Kabibble	checked
3	Kanfer 2000, p. 134	first use good, second use good	checked
4	Coniam 2015, pp. 42–43	This was on both p 42 and 43, edited	checked
5	Coniam 2015, p. 47	No issues	checked
6	Coniam 2015, p. 48	Reworded a statement that was more sweeping than the source supported	checked
7	Coniam 2015, p. 49	No issues	checked
8	NYPLimage	No issues	checked
9	Bader 2022, p. 345	slight inaccuracy in what the source supports fixed	checked
10	Mitchell 1996, p. 63	reworded to be more in keeping with the source	checked
11	Bader 2022, p. 346	first use reworded to be more in keeping with the source, second use good. Third use does not mention that Harpo had no wig in the Multicolor sequence - is that necessary, or is it one of those things like plot that doesn't need a citation? There are sources on the web that mention it (Absolutely needs a source and you need to make sure it follows it closely. You also want to use the best sources, not just any web source. -V) (Reply: Added.)	Checked
12	Coniam 2015, p. 31-32	No issues	checked
13	Kanfer 2000, p. 132	No issues	checked
14	Coniam 2015, p. 33	No issues	checked
15	Mitchell 1996, pp. 18–19	changed to 18-19. Added another ref to page 13 to cover stage actor roles	checked
16	Mitchell 1996, p. 13	No issues	checked
17	Roth 1954, p. 84	No issues	checked
18	Variety 1930c	No issues	checked
19	Bader 2022, p. 347	Slight emendation (constructed => designed)	checked
20	Kaplan 2025	No issues.	Checked
21	New York Daily News 2019	No issues	checked
22	Roth 1954, p. 84-85	Did not support Heerman retaining control of shooting schedule, removed. Added an IA link.	checked
23	Adamson 1973, p. 103	No issues. Added an IA link.	checked
24	Bader 2022, p. 348	First use: No issues. Second use: No issues.	checked
25	Louvish 2000, p. 209	No issues.	Checked.
26	Doherty 2006	No issues.	Checked.
27	Louvish 2000, p. 209-211	Did not support code being unenforced until 1934; added Doherty 2006. Also did not specifically say the cuts were a result of the censors' interference, so softened the language.	checked
28	Louvish 2000, p. 210-211	No issues.	Checked.
29	Mitchell 1996, p. 19	First use: No issues. Second use: it's here because they quote an article from the 27 Sep 1930 Film Spectator. If newspapers.com has the original, we could get the proper citation for it (or not, because this is easier to find?). (Great question. I think it's fine for now and you shouldn't do anything. Due to the obscurity of the source and its unavailability, there's not much to do. You could use the "as cited in" format if you want to give readers a pointer to the full cite. So in this instance you would say "The Film Spectator 1930, as cited in Mitchell 1996, p. 19". But since Mitchell doesn't actually list the source in the appendix, that isn't all that helpful. Yes, you should chase down the source if you want, but you'll need to make a request at WP:RX, and that could take a while. For now, citing Mitchell is good enough, but feel free to make a request at RX. Also remember that you don't have an author, title, or page number, so you will need to figure that out. But for now, I consider this closed. -V)	checked
30	Mitchell 1996, p. 14	No issues.	checked
31	Coniam 2015, p. 50	Some of the referenced material was on page 49, modified accordingly.	checked
32	Coniam 2015, pp. 49–50	No issues.	checked
33	Louvish 2000, p. 218	Remove inaccurate claim	checked
34	Louvish 2000, p. 218-219	No issues	Checked
35	Louvish 2000, p. 216	No issues	Checked
36	Louvish 2000, p. 219	No issues	Checked
37	Celati 2024, p. 83-91	No issues	Checked
38	Adamson 1973, p. 114	No issues	Checked
39	Artaud 1958, p. 142	Slight tweak to text to be more in keeping with source	Checked
40	Jarmusch 1992	Added page number	Checked
41	Eggener 1993	Slight tweak to text to be more in keeping with source	Checked
42	Chilton 2019	No issues	Checked
43	Film Comment 2012	No issues	Checked
44	Frank, Heidecker & Pertega 2019, p. 40	No issues	Checked
45	Variety 1930b, p. 8	Clarifies that BO total is scoped to Los Angeles	Checked
46	Variety 1932, p. 62	No issues	Checked
47	McKelvey 2016	Didn't support the cut film being 2 minutes shorter, added a new ref	Checked
48	Mitchell 1996, p. 20	Made it a bit clearer that it was present to support the 1956 date.	Checked
49	Stoliar 2011, p. 24	First use: No issues. Second use: Didn't support the film being shown outside the US, so added a citation.	Checked.
50	Maltin 1974, p. 1D	Not sure where to get this. Pre-dated my editing the page. I didn't question it because I heard a similar story from someone who knew Kaufman. (Added links to article and verified. Request a subscription for newspapers.com at WP:TWL -V)	checked
51	Variety 1949a	No issues.	Checked.
52	Stoliar 2011, p. 26	Story continues on p27, so added that	Checked
53	Silverstein 1974	No issues.	Checked.
54	Stoliar 2011, p. 36-42	Did not support description of a national release, so edited.	Checked
55	O'Connor 1979, p. 64	No issues.	Checked.
56	Liebenson 2016	Removed. Was duplicative of Cearns 2016 and didn't support claims of a 35mm print (which Cearns 2016 does)	Checked.
57	Cearns 2016	No issues.	Checked.
58	Arnaudin 2020	No issues.	Checked.
59	Rotten Tomatoes	No issues.	Checked.
60	Metacritic	No issues.	Checked.
61	Hall 1930	No issues.	Checked.
62	Dickstein 1930	No issues.	Checked.
63	The Film Daily 1930	No issues.	Checked.
64	Silverman 1930	No issues.	Checked.
65	Truffaut 1954	The citation is accurate. Needed to hunt around for it, and found it included in a book (pp103-104 of The Early Film Criticism of François Truffaut -- by Wheeler Winston Dixon) - should the book get cited too? (Answer: Since you are citing Truffaut 1954 directly through Dixon, then use the "as cited in" format I mentioned up above, in which case, yes, you would cite Dixon's book. You can also link to the original pub that you currently have in this article. So the answer is yes. However, if your current citation format prevents you from using the as cited in convention, just linking to Dixon's book is fine. You could also bundle the Truffaut 1954 citation below it. Several different ways to do it. Whatever works is my motto. But yes, cite Dixon. -V) (Reply: Done)	Checked
66	Lochte 1974	No issues.	Checked
67	Sterritt 1974	No issues.	Checked
68	O'Connor 1979	Slight text edit, but no real issues.	Checked.
69	Tucci 2009	Reworded the text to reflect the fact that the feature doesn't actually say that the works in the list Tucci put together are supposed to be influential, favorite, or any other adjective.	Checked.
70	Key & Peele 2014, p. 52	Cite the page number (52) and link to the IA source. Reply: Done	checked
71	Juster, Feiffer & Marcus 2011, p. 10	I was unable to verify all of the info, but it looks like the topic is discussed elsewhere in the book. It specifically says: 'Juster was hardly the first writer to deal in comic terms with the malaise of alienation. As a child, he was treated at the movies to one of its classic formulations upon hearing Groucho Marx, as Captain Geoffrey (or Jeffrey) T. Spaulding in Animal Crackers (1930), croon the woolly mock lament "Hello, I must be Going".' This (which is a bit weak) is the only reference to Animal Crackers specifically, although there are a number of other references to the brothers generally, Juster has talked about their influence, and at one point in Phantom Tollbooth, there is a joke about a middle initial that's very similar to one in Animal Crackers. Perhaps I should take this out? WDYT? (Answer: if the source doesn't support it, it has to go. -V) (Reply: Gone)	Checked
72	Marx 1976, p. 84	p. 84 of multiple editions. Reply: Done	checked
73	AFI100 2005	The about page says this was originally published in 2005. Add the date. Reply: Done	checked
74	Lane 2023	No issues.	Checked
75	MeTV 2020	This source doesn't support the following: "References and homages to Captain Spaulding have found their way into other media, as well. Harold Arlen and Yip Harburg's lyrics to "Lydia, the Tattooed Lady", which Groucho performed in At the Circus (1939), specifically reference Captain Spaulding." Reply: Added Lane 2023 above.	checked
76	Payne 2015	No issues.	checked
77	Mitchell 1996, p. 18	No issues.	checked
78	Kanfer 2000, p. 107	The author does describe them as his signature songs.	checked
79	Ramsburg 2015	Ramsburg was a well respected long-time radio host in Minnesota, and given that YBYL started on radio, and that the opening song is, in fact, Hooray for Captain Spaulding (which I'm not 100% clear needs a citation - it's very much like plot, where YBYL itself provides the source), I wonder how much we need to do a deep dive for a different citation for it? I have added a more compelling source for the previous sentence, though. (I'm not clear what the current problem is. Either Ramsburg supports it or it doesn't. The point I raised previously was that it wasn't clear Ramsburg was a RS. If he is, and the source supports it, then it's fine. The way I generally work is that if I have any questions at all, I try to find at least a second backup source, if I can. -V) (Reply: I wasn't sure whether it needed a citation. But it has one, and Ramsburg seems to be a RS)	checked
80	Vognar 2022	Fixed unsourced issue	checked
81	Nesselson 1996	No issues	checked
82	Campbell 2018	Supports Phil Colllins in 79	checked
83	Saito 2012	Collins sourced to Campbell 2018 instead	checked
84	Ebert 2009	Change cite pub to RogerEbert.com Reply: Done	checked
85	Dirks 1996	Change "filmsite" to "Filmsite" Reply: Done	checked
86	LDDB DiscoVision 2023	Append update year (2023) Reply: done	checked
87	LDDB LaserDisc 2023	Append publisher (MCA Home Video) and year of update (2023) to ref and cite (LDDB MCA Home Video 2023) Reply: Done but I don't understand the formatting rule here.	checked
88	Zacharek & Taylor 2004	Can support part of earlier ref 79.	checked
89	Hartman 2016	Replaced Amazon source	checked

Review

Placing this review on hold. You were supposed to go through all of the sources after the last review. The spot check table above shows that you did not. This is why I failed the first review, as the random sample I took at the time indicated this was the original problem. I thought you said you were going to revisit this. There are currently 79 refs. I made my way through 15, of which only a few had no problems. Most people would fail a second time at this point. However, I am confident you can fix this. You will need to review the 15 sources that I left comments about and use the remaining 64 entries to check them yourself and make notes in the table so that I and others can see that you verified it yourself. In other words, do the verification and use the table to indicate your work. Don't worry about changing the numbering as you add or subtract sources, as I will check in here and there and update the table accordingly. Good luck. Viriditas (talk) 09:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, there's a difference between what I did after the first round and most of what you've pointed out.

What I did was check to make sure that the fact stated immediately before the reference was supported by the reference. There were some issues with that, which I cleaned up.

I didn't check statements before that to the previous reference. For example, Saito 2012 did support the existence of a movie, but not of the album mentioned before it. I can go through the article and do that now.

I also didn't check stylistic details, like whether filmsite was capitalized correctly. There were also several sites where I didn't see a date, where you have helpfully found one. I am likely to continue to get stuff like that wrong, even after further review.

In other words, I was wrong about where the bar was. Which is fine, and I can go back for another round. Just don't be shocked if I continue to screw up the capitalization.

Re: Amazon: I did check to see if citing Amazon was kosher before I did it. It seems to be acceptable, especially in Home Media sections - for example, it is cited in the article for Casablanca, which is FA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casablanca_(film)#Home_media. Regardless, I've replaced it with another citation.

Thanks again for your patience with this - Jm307 (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Casablanca is one of our oldest FAs. You can click on the links to FA review versions in the talk page header. None of them linked to Amazon at the time, meaning it has been added later. It should be easy to link to other articles that support the content, and as I showed above, Zacharek & Taylor 2004 already support half of it. The missing half is just adding {{Cite AV media}} which allows you to add an OCLC and an ISBN, which takes you to a Special:BookSources page when you click on it, that links to Amazon among others. That's how you do it. Viriditas (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I already added a different supporting citation. Would it be valuable additional information to add the {{Cite AV media}} as well?

Not really. You found a better way. Good work. Viriditas (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: if you have any additional issues finding source material (like Variety), make a note in the table and I will help. Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jm307: Keep doing what you are doing. I'm thinking about splitting out the "fix" entries from the "checked" and "tbd" entries (blank) so we can see where we stand. Just giving you a head's up in case you notice three tables instead of one. As for your repeated questions about citing plot, it really depends on how you do it. For example, when this comes up in art articles, we are pretty careful to confine such material to a "description" section; same is true for film. In film-related articles we generally leave that kind of thing in the plot section and nowhere else. When you start mixing them together it can get problematic and border on OR. However, I have run into exceptions like you describe. I think we will need to take it on a case by case basis, which is why I'm going to split the table out. Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I changed my mind. It was easier to use row colors instead of separating the tables. Viriditas (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

So now you only have two outstanding problems. That's very good considering what you started with. Viriditas (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay, three. Much improved. Will take a look later. Viriditas (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I note that holds usually last a week. That's a couple of days from now. What happens when the hold expires? Or is there no mechanism keeping track of that? Jm307 (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Depends on the reviewer. I am happy at the progress you’ve made and I think we can extend it for a little while to keep improving things. I’ve replied to your questions in the table so it may be a good idea to begin there. Viriditas (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jm307: Once you finish addressing the red-listed items in the table (add, delete, replace), please do a final read-through. Once you’ve done that, I will do mine. Viriditas (talk) 03:58, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I've found a bunch of small things, but I assume it's still a complete mess... Take a look and let me know. Thanks! Jm307 (talk) 06:25, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Issues

• @Jm307: Given the time sensitive nature of "Animal Crackers will enter the public domain in 2026", you might consider removing it from the lead. This will be out of date in less than 19 days. Viriditas (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

  Do you think that, because it is very close to the deadline, it might be of more interest to the reader? Jm307 (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

  (I should add that I plan to change the sentence on 1 Jan.) Jm307 (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

  I guess it's fine, then. I'm just allergic to time-sensitive content as I try to write for longevity. Maybe it's a pet peeve. Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

• @Jm307: The social satire section is poorly written. See if you can take a look. Viriditas (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

  I took a pass over it. Is it any better? It's shorter... Jm307 (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, much better. I will continue... Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

• @Jm307: In her autobiography I'll Cry Tomorrow, Roth recalled that B. P. Schulberg, Paramount's head of West Coast production, told her she was being sent to New York "to be kicked in the rear by the Marx Brothers" as punishment for what he perceived as difficult behavior on set. I realize we've already been over this in the previous review, but I'm still not happy with this wording. Can you either fix it or add an explanatory footnote? I would appreciate it. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

  Do you want me to use the wording that you put in the previous review?

  Roth believed B. P. Schulberg, Paramount's head of West Coast production, gave her the role as a punishment due to the perception that she was difficult to work with.

  I kind of liked the direct quotation, but if you don't, I can use your words instead.

  (If you don't want me to use your words: I feel that the current wording addresses your concerns about the previous wording, so I'd like to hear more about your concerns with it.) ~2025-40618-29 (talk) 04:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

  (The above was me. Maybe I wasn't logged in? Jm307 (talk) 05:05, 14 December 2025 (UTC))

  My concern is very simple. Anything that stops me from reading is an issue. This is sometimes called “writing friction”, or poor flow. Personally, I call it the speed bump problem. The reader is the vehicle, the prose is the road. Viriditas (talk) 10:05, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

  I've added a sentence to improve the transition between the previous sentence and this sentence. Does that help? Jm307 (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

  An interesting solution! Speed bump averted? Viriditas (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

  If you are happy with it! Jm307 (talk) 03:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

  I reverted back to a previous version because the overlaying of the attribution just didn't work. Viriditas (talk) 03:02, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@Viriditas Just checking in - is there anything I'm supposed to be doing right now? Thanks! Jm307 (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Did you finish your read through? I had to take a break for a few days from this review. I'm back now. Let's finish it up. Viriditas (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Just want to say how much I love this line: "regularly arriving late, taking long lunches, and leaving early." Viriditas (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Note, I might make this into a t-shirt. Viriditas (talk) 03:02, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@Viriditas Truly, an aspirational lifestyle for all of us. Jm307 (talk) 06:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

• @Jm307: Is there a reason you didn't expand the cast section per MOS:FILMCAST? I'm thinking you already had much of this material left over from extraneous deleted plot section detritus that could have been moved here. Just wondering why this was never done. Obviously, it's not required nor necessary for GA, but I'm guessing this was ignored because the majority of our older film articles never managed to create a fully fleshed out cast section, so there's a bit of selection bias going on here. Might be interesting to bring this up with the film project in the future. Virtually all of our film articles post-1970 (at GA and FA level) have extensive cast sections. I think I tried to get clarification on this from the films project a decade ago, but I don't recall the outcome. Something to think about in the future.
  • TBH, I wasn't sure what to add. A lot of the discussion of the casting process is in the production section, and most of them aren't as much characters as they are flimsy excuses for a joke. I can take a pass over it, if you think it would be valuable. One interesting take might be more detail on what changed from conception to the stage version to the film (e.g., the Chandler character was originally a rabbi, not a fish peddler, and was supposedly a take on Otto Kahn, who struggled with his Judaism).
• Zeppo subverts the expected role of the obedient subordinate by admitting he omitted the parts he didn't think were important.
  • This was one of my fave scenes in the film. There was something spontaneous and improvisational about it that really appealed to me. I wonder if more could be said about this in the future.
    • I can say a lot about it, but most of it probably doesn't belong in the article unless I can find citations. :) The brothers worked very hard to make their dialogue seem spontaneous. A famous observation (I forget who made it) was that, if the viewer hadn't seen the script, they would have believed that Groucho was making it up on the spot. When you add the brotherly mind-meld you get from a decade or more on stage together, you get something very special.
• @Jm307: I made some copyedits to fix obvious issues. However, I did not get a chance to copyedit the sections on Themes, Release, and Reception, all of which have minor prose issues. Please re-read and copyedit. Viriditas (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

  See final review comments below. You're almost done here. Viriditas (talk) 03:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

  @Viriditas It was more like an hour, and, unfortunately, it's too late here for any sort of beverages, but I believe it is probably closer to what you had in mind now. Jm307 (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Issues fixed. Attribution added.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Recommend future cast section expansion before next FAC. See comments above.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Issues fixed with extensive reference spot check (see collapsed table indicating fixes up above)

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Broad.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Cultural influence subsection needs a bit of cleanup so that it doesn't read like a glorified trivia section. It's very close, but needs a little attention.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Neutral. Future expansion: I would encourage the nominator to search out more critical analysis. While there's no NPOV problems at the moment, the topic could benefit from more in depth criticism regarding the controversial subject matter.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Stable.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Tags are good. Lead poster image moved to Commons.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Relevant. Captions are good.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Minor issues related to prose in "Themes", "Reception", and "Release". Possible issue with framing of trivia in the "Cultural influence" subsection. This article is close to passing, but I would encourage the nominator to select a hot or cold beverage of their choice and spend 30 minutes to an hour working on these three sections. After that, I would say that all issues have been addressed and we can move towards closure.

   Article now passes criteria after two reviews, extensive spot-check of all sources (see collapsed table up above) and full copyedits. The nominator expressed interest in featuring this article on the main page in the new year. Given that this is now a GA, you will have seven days to submit a DYK nomination, and I recommend that you do so soon. You can use the now free image File:Animal Crackers Movie Poster.jpg to lead your hook, and you will have accomplished your original goal with some minimal variation. Good work. Viriditas (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

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. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Darth Stabro (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

The four Marx Brothers in Animal Crackers

• ... that the Marx Brothers film Animal Crackers (poster pictured), which was kept out of circulation for decades due to a rights dispute with its original writers, will enter the public domain on January 1, 2026?

• Source: https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2026/

• • ALT1: ... that the 1930 Marx Brothers film Animal Crackers (poster pictured) is set to enter the public domain in the United States on January 1, 2026? Source: https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2026/
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Jm307 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Jm307 (talk) 05:37, 19 December 2025 (UTC).

• I'll be reviewing this. Vestrian24Bio 04:10, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: I would prefer ALT1; because I think the release year is necessary for foreign readers who might be not aware of the Public domain policy to understand it better. Vestrian24Bio 04:24, 20 December 2025 (UTC)