Talk:Angels with Dirty Faces/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: JohnWickTwo (talk · contribs) 13:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Initiating assessment which may take a few days to prepare. Possibly you could mention what drew you to editing this early Cagney film and why you are nominating it at this time. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi JohnWickTwo, thank you for taking the time and for putting in the effort to review this nomination! I'm a huge fan of Cagney's. Angels with Dirty Faces brings back fond memories of my childhood. I have a variety of books that feature a lot of useful information on this film, and seeing such little information in this article, I felt compelled to try and bring it up to the best standard possible. - Martin (Metal121) (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Start assessment of article by sections:

• Lead section

What you have in the lead section is useful though it would be nice to see another paragraph summarizing some of your nice sections in your production section. For example, a short second paragraph giving a 2-3 sentence version of either your casting section or your filming section could be informative and beneficial to readers.

• 1 Plot

Plot section looks fine but you do not have a cast section directly following it which would be nice to see. Normally, when you have a cast section listing the cast then you do not have to parenthetically include then names within the plot section. By then taking the names out of the plot section, since they would be in a new cast section just below it, then the plot section becomes more readable to other readers and editors of the article. See my comment about your infobox of cast below.

• 2' Cast

Would be nice if you could consider adding a cast section here as mentioned above. Just take your infobox and make it a separate section after the plot section.

• 2 Production

This section is well researched for the purposes of this article. Try to switch left and right on some of these images, especially those on the right side, which currently seem to bulk up one on top of the other on my screen.

• 2.1 Development

This section appears well researched for the purposes of this article.

the strengths of section is clear. the whole content is clear and logical.--LBJJames (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• 2.2 Casting

This section appears well researched for the purposes of this article.

• 2.3 Writing

This section appears well researched for the purposes of this article.

• 2.4 Filming

This section appears well researched for the purposes of this article.

• 3 Release

The budgeting information and discussion in this section should go into a separate section under production section as a budget section or a financing section. I am assuming that the production costs were comparable to Robin Hood or Four Daughters that year, and it would be nice to see the comparable budget numbers for contemporaneous films if no direct budget information is available. The release section also should give some word about home media release versions and if there have ever been special features put on DVD, such as voice-over tracks by the director, or documentaries about the making of this film, etc. If there is a Criterion dvd of this Cagney film, then it should be listed as well. Your discussion in your adaptations section below should normally be pulled into this release section following the example of other film articles at Wikipedia. Did Warners actually have a negative profit year in 1938?

• 4 Critical reception

Could the dates of these 1930s reviews by added.

• 4.1 Initial reactions
• 4.1.1 Accolades

This section appears well researched for the purposes of this article.

• 4.2 General consensus

This film is normally numbered among Cagney's best four films, and it was not possible to make this evaluation until after Cagney died. It makes sense, I think, to separate what critics said in the 1930s to what critics say after Cagney died. In the 1930s there was no such thing as a top four Cagney films list, though there definitely are such lists today in the 21st century. If you can quote a review from the 1930s and place it next to a critical comment made by someone in the 21st century then it would likely be interesting for your readers to see such 2 opinions placed side by side. The section title of "contemporary consensus" might be more on point here. See my comments about the other films in this genre and if some comparisons with those films are worthwhile to make in this article.

• 5 Adaptations in other media

This section material would normally appear as part of the release section above.

• 6 Legacy

Death rows films are a special film genre which have received heightened interest in the 21st century with all the debates about the death penalty. One famous example is the film by Kurosawa titled High and Low (1963 film) which deals with the emotional breakdown of a convict at the film's conclusion. Another film dealing with the death penalty is 21 Grams which you could also mention. Its a serious topic and I hope you can add one or two words dealing with this genre or similar films based on reliable sources. Separately, it may enhance your text if your language describing the overall merit of the film should not be over-arching using phrases of "the best and most wonderful" variety, and to replace such phases with a more precise designation such as "the film is considered to be among Cagney's four best films," or something like that. Readers and editors seem to prefer the more precise version of such designations rather than the over-arching variety of such claims.

@Metal121: That should get things started. You can ping my account when you are ready to continue or if you have any related questions. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Metal121: Just checking in after the long week-end to ask about any progress with the article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Concluding comments:

Quick close of assessment due to nominator apparently being on Wikibreak. There has been no editing from the nominator account in over a week on the article nor any other editing at all. No answer to the progress requests above either. The article is now left for other nominators or editors to re-nominate as is felt appropriate for the article in the future. The assessment of sections above may be used for future assessments and reviews of this article as needed. JohnWickTwo (talk) 01:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)