Talk:Ben-Hur (2016 film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: JohnWickTwo (talk · contribs) 14:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Initiating assessment of this film article which may take a day or two to prepare before posting here. Could the nominator here confirm that you are aware that the current top editor for this article is no longer available for editing here, and possibly state why this film brought you to make this nomination. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusted AutoParts: Let me know when you are ready to start and I will need about a day to type in my notes to begin this assessment. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good to go. I fount the article decently presentable and thus workable to maybe become GA, pending results of the assessment. Rusted AutoParts 15:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'll get to collecting my notes together. In the meantime, if you could mention if you have seen the remake, or the original Oscar winner, of both the films? JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Initiate review by sections.

Lead section

Lead section should include another paragraph to summarize more of an article this size. Possibly a short paragraph summarizing the reluctance of the director to take on the project, or perhaps more on the production and filming.

1 Plot

Appears adequate to material covered. Could you provide an accurate word count of the version of the plot that you are pleased with. Three consecutive paragraphs in the current version begin with the name Ben-Hur which could be looked at.

2 Cast

Possibly a little top heavy for the leading role. Are all of those quotes really notable or informative for the purposes of this article. Possibly some of this could be shifted to the casting section in production.

3 Production
3.1 Development

The end of this section appears to list two or three sentences and might be formatted into a paragraph structure.

3.2 Writing

Adequate to material covered in article.

3.3 Casting

See note above. Possibly bring some of the cast material above into this casting section.

3.4 Principal photography

Appears adequate to article. There is no CGI section in this article and my understanding was that the film relied a good deal on this for the filmmaking.

3.5 Chariot race sequence

Long section with what appears like a list of sentences at the end here which could be rendered as a single paragraph or something similar.

4 Music

This entire section is really two separate sections and would likely be better as a stand alone article for the music from the film with only the link to it from here needed.

4.1 Soundtrack
4.1.1 Track listing
4.2 Score
4.2.1 Track listing
5 Release

Section appears adequate to article.

5.1 Marketing
5.2 Home media
6 Reception

Given the high Oscars success of the original film, some more reviews from critics comparing the two films would be useful. Not necessarily those reviews which call the remake a failure at the box office, but the ones that compare the remake to the original and state why the original succeeded where the remake failed. The Jones review from Chicago is one example of this. 2-3 more reviews might be helpful to this section currently on the short side.

6.1 Box office

Failure at box office.

6.2 Critical response

Add some film reviews per my comment above. The Jones article from Chicago (there are several other well written reviews on RT you can easily find) is a good example to quote from.

6.3 Accolades

Failure at the box office, failure at the Award venues.

@Rusted AutoParts: That should get things started. Let me know if you have seen this film, or the original version, or both. Ping me when you ready to continue or if there are questions. JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusted AutoParts: Its the end of the long week-end and I was wondering if there is any progress. I should be around most of this week if there is any progress. Let me know when you are ready. JohnWickTwo (talk) 04:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologise for the delay here, an issue in my personal life came up that i still need to attend to before I can fixate on a longterm cleanup. I'll begin working on this hopefully on Wednesday. Thank you for you patience. Rusted AutoParts 04:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnWickTwo: apologies again. I'm sorry. I just will not have any time unfortunately to devote to any lengthy page updates. I feel like I have wasted your time and for that I am sorry. Unless there's another editor who may wish to take a crack at it, It's probably best to fail it for now. And if or when I have time I'll use what was pointed out here to fix it up before renominating again. Rusted AutoParts 04:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding comments:

Quick close of assessment at request of nominator because of real-world obligations. The assessment of sections above may be used for future assessments and reviews of this article as needed. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]