Jump to content

Talk:A Star Is Born (2018 film)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Filmman3000 (talk · contribs) 21:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Good article overall seems like everything I heard about it. One needs to check all citations. Seems fine to me. Filmman3000 (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know how the citations look when you have a chance to take an overall look. Let me know about your edit requests or modification when you are ready. CodexJustin (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Filmman3000, please note that for GA reviews, you need to review specifically against the GA criteria. It is not about whether the article covers the film, but whether it does so per the actual criteria. So it needs to be well-written (including not having grammatical errors), verifiable and without original research or close paraphrasing, broad in its coverage, neutral, and so on. Please be sure to carefully check the article against all the criteria. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BlueMoonset Thank you for keeping an eye to what I am doing, as it is my first time doing this.
According to your link it is. Verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies. This article seems to respect it and was what I was looking for. Without being mesmerized by its writing it was thorough, and better than other good articles I've seen to be honest.
If you notice anything that slip through the cracks let the nominator know. Didn't notice any typos either.
As I am new doing this I did not expect to make the final call, but expected several people to look over it and vote. But if it's not let me know.
I choose this article because I am not interested in it, but quite familiar with it's notability we all had a friend who loved it. I haven't seen it, nor am I a fan of the lead actors. So neutrality and being a pleasant read are my key ingredient to judge this specific article. Also it fits everything I have heard and read about it. Let me know how you feel about it.Filmman3000 (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CodexJustin Please cut the outline in half you spoiled the ending. From the point where she meets the producer just explained in one paragraph the types of positions the characters will be in and don't spoil the ending. °
Other wise the intro is fine, the cast section is fine, and production which I've just reread now. The first few citations are fine but a few have sources that I have never heard of, but they seem legit.Filmman3000 (talk) 06:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Filmman3000, I'll do my best to read through the article in the next few days to see how it matches up against the criteria and post here when I've done so. Your request to CodexJustin to cut the plot because of spoilers runs counter to Wikipedia guidelines (see WP:SPOILER). Indeed, a plot section that deliberately omits key plot points would seem to violate the first part of the broadness criteria. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Filmman3000: Thanks for following up on the comments from BlueMoonset. I think he is also referring to the guidelines listed in the instructions page for WP:GAN which he may refer to when or after making any comments about the article matching up against the criteria for assessment. Looking forward to comments from the editors participating. CodexJustin (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: I'll look forward to your comments when you have a chance to read through the article. CodexJustin (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Two things I have noticed is that it seems they were controversy regarding the right owner of the film who had allegations of sexual misconduct. That citation is used in the infobox. I don't know how important it is to have.
Also a Twitter Tweet is used for citations. I am quite sure this is not allowed.Filmman3000 (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Filmman3000: That was a good catch, and twitter cites are usually not allowed so I replaced it with a proper citation. Regarding Jon Peters and his allegations, this type of matter is usually dealt with on the biography page for the person involved and usually only with reliable citations. In this case the reliable citations are available and were put into his biography article by another editor. The issue has not had appreciable effect on the film production here in this film which mostly involved persons without those types of issues. Once you are comfortable with the article, then you might read the "Instructions tab" for passing/not passing article in the link for WP:GAN. If you have any questions then you can leave them here for BlueMoonset or me to get to. Also, BlueMoonset may have further edits which he might place directly place into the article or comments on the article, as he feels is best, which is fine and expected from experienced editors. Let me know if you spot more items in the article which need attention before using the GAN instructions for passing/not passing this article. Looking forward to any more comments on the article. CodexJustin (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset's comments

[edit]

I've made some copyedits to the article. Some terms were unclear, so I rephrased to avoid jargon. There were also places where more information is needed, and a couple where the sources don't support the material. Here's what I found:

  • Intro section: there is a fair amount of information that it given here that is not included in the body of the article. Per MOS:LEAD, one of the GA criteria in the "well-written" section, material should typically be in the body of the article if it's also in the intro, and you might want to consider moving some of the material from intro to body.
  • The link to the split off "Accolades" article for this film contains a large amount of that documentation. I can trip some of that discussion from the lede section since it is already covered in the fully linked article for the film's accolades. You can abridge this further as needed if the linked article in not sufficient for this. CodexJustin (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plot section: the fourth paragraph has the following sentence: Later, Jack and Ally fight after he drunkenly voices his disapproval of Ally's new image and music, which is nominated for three Grammy Awards. This needs to be rephrase, since Ally's new image wouldn't be nominated for Grammys; it also isn't clear whether Ally has already been nominated at the time they fight, or if the nominations come after.
  • Pre-production: The final sentence of this section relies on the Forbes source, and the $39.9 million figure in the article is exactly 70% of Cooper's $56 million total earnings for 2019. That's more than you can safely conclude from this information in the source, and it's far too exact (the numbers will have been rounded for the article). In addition, it's possible that Cooper received some money in 2018, maybe even many millions, since the movie had made much of its money then. (Note that $39.9 million is more than the budget of the entire film, and approaching 10% of the worldwide gross.) I think you need to get more specific information here with better sourcing.
  • My rewording of that material should clarify most of this regarding the pre-production negotiation. The back-end profits for actors are a separate discussion which is covered at the level of the financial aspects of the film's box office success covered in later sections in the article. CodexJustin (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The additional detail for Cooper's directorial debut and not getting upfront is useful; thank you. The $39.9 million figure is still there, however, and that precise a number is not adequately supported by the source. I'm also not sure that it should be called a "salary", since whatever the total figure was would have included profit sharing and other amounts beyond actual salary. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Casting: I'm not sure why Halsey is listed here; she just had a cameo as herself, which is mentioned elsewhere.
  • Writing: There's almost nothing here. The infobox lists the writers as Eric Roth, Bradley Cooper, and Will Fetters, but only the latter is mentioned in the sole sentence, and that dates back to 2012, long before Cooper was attached to the project. This needs significant expansion, not least if Roth was the first-credited writer. Did Fetters stay on the project to the end, or did they just use some of his 2012 script? There needs to be more. (If there weren't more, then the sentence should be combined into another section where it fits.)
  • Filming: It should certainly be possible to get more than a start date for filming: what about the end date for principal shooting? Any prominent location shooting? Also, the lede/intro mentions that filming started at the 2017 Coachella, and that should certainly be here as well.
  • Music: The citation given after the The studio announced that the album "features 19 songs in a wide range of musical styles + 15 dialogue tracks that will take you on a journey that mirrors the experience of seeing the film." sentence does not contain the quote given here. If you're going to retain the quoted phrase (including the very odd-looking "+"), a valid source citation is needed. You could just given the information in your own words and avoid the quoted phrase, though you will need to find a source regardless.
  • Since the main article for the soundtrack has been split off, then its likely best to keep the main material there and trim the extra text from this film article. It was likely left over from before the article split by a previous editor. CodexJustin (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Release section: The information in both subsections is U.S.-centric; is there nothing international that can be included for Theatrical or Home media?
  • Home media: There's nothing here about the revenue brought in by the digital downloads and DVD/Bluray/etc. discs. I've known GA nominations that were said to be "too soon" because the media release hadn't yet occurred, so the information probably ought to be included.
  • Home release and streaming has been available for an extended time now. Many services such as netflix are not really as forthcoming on the breakdown of market share, which I am learning from their other recent releases such as The Irishman recently with DeNiro. CodexJustin (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point is that some revenue information should be available, and therefore included. If the downloads or services revenues aren't available, the media sold in box stores and the like should be. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Box office: There should be a bit more on the international release; I've added a bit, but there could be more, including at least a few more countries and their revenues.
  • Critical response: In the third paragraph, "and remarked the film as one of the best iterations to its 1937, 1954, and the 1976 versions" needs to be entirely rewritten.
  • The word "remarked" is still there, and doesn't work in this context; unfortunately, the rewrite has its own issues, with one of the best versions of all the remakes reading oddly since this movie is one of three remakes, and being "one of the best" of three isn't much of a compliment at all, even though I think a compliment is intended. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accolades: Again, you shouldn't have more info in the intro than you do here, so this section needs at least to mention the Academy Award and Golden Globe wins as well as anything else covered in the intro; indeed, it would probably be better to move some of the detail out of the intro and down here.
  • That was left over by the previous editor in the lede section after the article split was made for the Accolades page for this film. I have trimmed it a little further, and you can remove more of it since it is all covered in the new Accolades page made for this film last year. CodexJustin (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a lot of detail left still in the intro; as I said above, you should move some of it down into the Accolades section, and I'm disappointed that you still don't mention the actual awards won here. There's no way this section could be considered adequate without them and the significant nominations, even with the split. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I've found after spending a couple of hours looking through the article, and there may well be more, but I'm out of time. It might be a good idea to have another, even more experienced reviewer (one who's done a few movie articles) to look through as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: That was a nice read though you did yesterday and I have tried to address each one of your comments with added sources and links. The previous editor of the new Accolades page seems to have left more in the article than is needed after the page split, which I have trimmed. I am to be away now for several weeks without access to a computer, and since two editors have now read the article, you are in a position to make any further "bold" edits as needed to give consideration to pass the article. I am comfortable that both of you have made a full read through of the article, and you can add any material you feel would make the article pass here. BlueMoonset, if you could coordinate this then I have some good faith that its very close to completion. Otherwise, you can pass/not pass the article at this time since I will not be around for at least several weeks and the article should not languish indefinitely if it this close to completion as the original reviewer stated above. It was nice to add the edit requests which you made overnight and to make the further upgrades to the article. CodexJustin (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CodexJustin, whether this was a US film intended for US audiences or not, the fact remains that the international gross was higher than the US revenue, which means that it needs to be given due attention: in short, more than what's given here. I've made a few specific notes above where more work is needed; I hope you're still around to look at things, since your reply was posted less than an hour ago. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset:That is actually accurate with Venom being the only other film to outpace it at the foreign box office. I have added it into the text. I am to be without a computer starting this evening and prior to going out of town and hope to hear from you over the next hour or two since you appear to be on-line. If you have time, I can try to do further edits at least for another hour or two. If you can do any bold edits appropriate to the article then it looks ok for you to do them with your other edits and comments being on target. CodexJustin (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been asked to leave comments here. I haven't seen the film, so I wouldn't normally volunteer to do this review. However, a quick read and at the moment I feel this would fail based on coverage - there is next to nothing on filming and music. There's usually a wealth of information on these for many recent blockbusters, particularly multiple Oscar-winning, and especially when the filming and music are particularly important to the film. I also did the review for the song Shallow, from this film, and believe that article is longer than this one. Before I go watch it/add comments, I'd like to see more in these sections added. Kingsif (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CodexJustin: see comment above. Kingsif (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kingsif, CodexJustin had to go out of town after February 11, and I really thought he'd be back by this time—it looks like "at least several weeks" translates to more than nine weeks (how much more beyond nine I wouldn't care to guess). In any event, it was important to know how close to meeting the GA criteria someone else thought this was. Since you think the coverage is inadequate, I think it should be failed for now. CodexJustin, when he returns, can work on the issues you've noted and renominate it once they've been addressed. Do you agree? If so, I'll take care of closing it. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: That seems fair. Kingsif (talk) 03:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've just closed it. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Star_Is_Born_(2018_film)/GA1&oldid=951641951"