Talk:Quiet Please!/GA1

GA review

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

Nominator: MailJail (talk · contribs) 03:43, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 02:14, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I'll look over the article to see how it compares to the good article criteria. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:14, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

MailJail, before I start digging into the text, I notice that large portions of the article are sourced to the Tom and Jerry Golden Collection and to cartoonresearch.com. First, what makes the Golden Collection a source for this information? Videos can be sources when necessary, but the citation doesn't say anything about where the information is coming from. Second, cartoonresearch.com looks like an independently-published blog, which means it would fall under the policy for self-published sources. Is Thad Komorowski a well-established expert who has written film history journalism for serious publications? It's a high bar for self-published sources to be considered reliable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

In the Tom and Jerry Golden Collection DVD, there are 37 shorts included with 9 of them having commentaries; Quiet Please! included. Mark Kausler, an animator and director, does a commentary on the short. The website, cartoonresearch.com, is created by Jerry Beck, an animation historian and author. His work includes, The 50 Greatest Cartoons: As Selected by 1,000 Animation Professionals, and The Animated Movie Guide. Beck's website lets only selected animators and historians make an article, with Thad Komorwski being included. Komorwski is an animation historian who has been credited on booklet, The Art of Tom and Jerry, from the Tom and Jerry: The Golden Era Anthology Blu-ray set. MailJail (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

General:

• The article uses the phrases "this short", "the short", and "the cartoon" a lot. It feels like it's actively trying to avoid saying Quiet Please! or "it", which gets distracting.
• If the same citation appears twice in a row, it can all be a single citation at the end. For example if I have Sentence one.[14] Sentence two.[15] Sentence three.[15] then I can write Sentence one.[14] Sentence two. Sentence three.[15] and it's understood that the citation applies to everything before it. This isn't part of the good article criteria, but it's good to know for the future.

Lead:

• Per MOS:LEADCITE, it's permitted but generally unnecessary to include citations in the lead and the infobox unless the claims are likely to be contested. Everything in the lead should appear in the body, and that's where the citation can be found.
• The fact that it's the 22nd doesn't appear anywhere in the body.

Plot:

• Good.

Production:

• "before the MGM Cartoon Studio closed down" seems unnecessary, I would suggest just writing that they directed all of the Tom and Jerry shorts released by MGM Cartoon Studio.
• Are Flirty Birdy and Mouse in Manhattan relevant to Quiet Please!"? This feels like extraneous detail.
• "By this short, the four "key" animators of Tom and Jerry" – This looks like scarequotes, which should be avoided.
• "historians" is used a couple times. Who are they? See MOS:WEASEL.
• "presumably due to his experience with animating Pluto at Disney." – Another case where it's important who is saying this. Is Wikipedia making this presumption (that would be original research)?
• "in a more "solid" form" – Does the source elaborate on what "solid" means here?
• The list of who animated what feels a little stilted, though I don't have any immediate suggestions for an alternative. The details about how different animators did different things with it are helpful.

Reception:

• I don't know if Simon's commentary on the formulaic approach is praise.

Release:

• I think the "Availability" section should be cut. It's a fairly routine list of Tom and Jerry collections and none of this probably needs to be mentioned unless there's a re-release that independent sources describe as particularly significant. There also isn't a source verifying that this is the complete list. Some of the sources are unreliable, which I'll touch on below.

References:

• If there's a title for the DVD commentary (even if it's just "Commentary"), it would help to add that to the citation somehow.
• Some of the sources used to cite availability (including intanibase and lddb) appear to be user-generated content, which precludes them from being reliable sources. Per above, it may be preferable to just remove the availability section altogether.

Source spot checks to ensure there are no text-source integrity or close paraphrasing issues:

• [5] Graham (2011) p. 294 – All uses good.
• [12] Thad's Review Part 1 – All uses good. At first I worried that "but was released before the cartoon" is getting close to original research since the source doesn't explicitly say this, but I think it's clear enough from the context that it can be used.
• [19] Motion Picture Herald May-June 1946 – This is used twice to say the audience enjoyed the cartoon, but it doesn't seem to support this directly. Even then, this is a really broad claim that doesn't say anything substantial or verifiable. Should probably be removed entirely.

I love a good Tom and Jerry short (they were before my time, but I grew up on Boomerang). I've posted my notes above on where changes might need to be made before it meets the good article criteria, mostly just minor style and readability suggestions. Since this is your first nomination, I've linked the relevant policies and guidelines where applicable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I tried to address these errors. Also, Kausler didn't elaborate on what "solid" meant. MailJail (talk) 04:35, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Further thoughts:

• The article currently uses four non-free images. I'm generally not as concerned about this, but just be aware that some editors may push back on it per point 3a at WP:NFCCP. I'll leave it to your judgement as to whether two different production drawings are needed to convey the full idea. Regarding the production drawings specifically, their license currently says they're from a website. While it's okay to mention what website you found them on, that's not where they were originally published. Do we know where they were originally published? The license should reflect that.
• Animation historians state that Patterson liked animating scenes with Spike. still doesn't tell us who specifically believes this. Or if it's a statement the source says confidently as fact, then we can omit "animation historians" and state it as fact ourselves.
• The availability heading and bulleted format are gone, but the same problems remain. A lot of the sourcing there is shaky, and it's a routine list. Is it rare for a Tom and Jerry short to be re-released so many times? If it is, then the best compromise might be to say there were several DVD and Blu-Ray releases without trying to list them all. If it's common, then re-releases probably don't need to be mentioned at all except for the 1953 reissue.

MailJail, a few more notes. This looks pretty close to the GA criteria now. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Since it was possible to remove the content without needing any rewriting, I've taken the liberty of removing the parts that don't meet the GA criteria, so this article now meets it fully. I've also adjusted the non-free use rationales for the images. Any further changes on these can be handled through standard editing and/or discussion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2026 (UTC)