Jump to content

Talk:Blade Runner 2049/GA2

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: Mujinga (talk · contribs) 20:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comment

[edit]
  • Hi I enjoyed the movie in the cinema and I'll take this on to review as part of the April–May 2020 backlog drive.

Review

[edit]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Images

[edit]
  • All fine in terms of rights
  • Best practice would include alt texts
  • Gosling / Ford caption - can wikilink San Diego Comic-Con
 Done Rusted AutoParts 19:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stock exchange caption - can add some wikilinks
 Done Rusted AutoParts 19:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deakins caption: "win" is not needed and perhaps it can be mentioned in the awards sections that he won the award. Also the positioning of the image in critical response feels slightly strange, could move to accolades
I would disagree with this, as the image is to reflect the critical acclaim Deakins got from critics for his work. Rusted AutoParts 23:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does accolades not make more sense? That's where the award is mentioned Mujinga (talk) 00:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The bulk of the caption is more about the critical acclaim. The accolade mention was to just highlight it being his very first win. But overall, as Deakins saw the bulk of critical acclaim, it fits more in critical acclaim. Rusted AutoParts 00:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spinner caption: Spinner display "Spinner on display"
 Done Rusted AutoParts 19:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

[edit]
  • Fine, earwigs flags up some quotations, but they are quoted here as well

Lead

[edit]
  • The lead could do with expanding, per MOS:LEAD to three (or even four) full paragraphs. What's already there is pretty good, but there's things in the article that could be added to the summary eg casting, prequels, social commentary, future
  • $260 million - may as well say " $260.5 million" since that is what is used elsewhere
 Done Rusted AutoParts 23:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Set thirty years after the first film, - don't think this is mentioned below
 Done Rusted AutoParts 23:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • K is only mentioned as a Nexus-9 in the lead
Added Nexus-9 into Plot as well. Rusted AutoParts 17:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • hoping to increase the profits of their studio not sure if that is needed in lead
 Done Rusted AutoParts 17:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

[edit]
  • mobile emitter, an emanator - is emanator needed? it doesn't really explain anything
 Done Rusted AutoParts 23:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cast

[edit]
  • Young's likeness was digitally superimposed onto Loren Peta, who was coached by Young on how to recreate her performance from the first film - can you rephrase thsi becuase i am getting a bit stuck on "her", i know it refers to Young but as it is it feels like it is referring to Peta
Are you sure it requires changing? I've read the sentence over and I'm just not seeing the issue personally. Rusted AutoParts 02:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
yes i agree, on re-reading it seems fine as it is Mujinga (talk) 10:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Development

[edit]
  • were in final negotiations to purchase the intellectual property from veteran producer Bud Yorkin - bit dramatic, maybe better something like "purchased the intellectual property rights from producer Bud Yorkin"
 Done Rusted AutoParts 19:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • bestowed - gave?
 Done Rusted AutoParts 19:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • he never intended to endeavor the task, - very garbled, needs rephrasing
 Done Rusted AutoParts 19:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ridley Scott's involvement in the new feature to the press, then under contract as the film's director - needs rephrasing
 Done Rusted AutoParts 19:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • provided brief insight of their vision - needs rephrasing, at the very least change "brief" to "little"
 Done Rusted AutoParts 19:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • instilling - needs to be a different word, like "creating" or "inspiring"
 Done Rusted AutoParts 19:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was captivated by the screenplay, however, and after consulting Fancher, soon found reassurance in the screenwriter's conviction in their vision. - needs rephrasing
Does this work? "Nevertheless, he liked the screenplay and was assured by Fancher's investment in the project" Rusted AutoParts 17:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
yeah that's great Mujinga (talk) 10:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • therefore saw modernizing Blade Runner's retrofuturistic onscreen world, rather than devising a contemporaneous universe anew, imperative for an authentic story - also needs a rewrite
 Done by someone Rusted AutoParts 17:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Casting

[edit]
  • Gossip of better "gossip about"
  • relayed the actor needs rephrasing
  • backstory. could be better "backstory:" or start the next sentence with "Ford said:"
  • massive not needed
  • As well not needed
  • by filmmakers "by the filmmakers"
 Done all Rusted AutoParts 02:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Filming

[edit]
  • Filmmakers - "The filmmakers"
  • as late as - not needed
  • Hungarian filmmakers - I don't think "filmmakers" is needed here, didn't see it in source
  • Ford conferred - "conferred" isn't right here
  • had been killed - better "was killed"
  • Producers were ultimately able to finish filming Gosling's scenes in time for the Thanksgiving holiday. - this sentence can be merged with the previous one
 Done all. Rusted AutoParts 00:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cinematography

[edit]
  • certain brutalist landmarks in London (such as the Barbican Estate and Trellick Tower) were among the referential material - I'm starting to see that this could have done with a copy edit. "brutalist" and "were among the referential material" are not needed
 Done Rusted AutoParts 00:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • to scale - "to the scale"
 Done Rusted AutoParts 00:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • spinners - can you add one sentence to explain what they are?
 Done Rusted AutoParts 00:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the paragraph beginning When Gassner was first needs some work. Gassner is introduced two paragraphs earlier but then the comment about street sweepers seems out of context. Then the end of the paragraph spinners are mentioned again. Also is this paragraph best off under cinematography?
The sentence on street sweepers I feel has context, this was the first request Villenueve made of his production designer. As for the paragraph being under Cinematography, there isn't a specific area this could fit under. Should I rename the section to "Cinematography and production design"? Rusted AutoParts 17:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
i think the problem here is that spinners are mentioned in the last sentence of the previous paragraph and so the new paragraph loses me slightly. maybe changing "passing street sweepers. Redesigning" to "passing street sweepers and redesigning" would help, but it could just be me getting lost here. as for the section, yes it's a bit tricky to know what to say ... Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film doesn't mention cinematography once when I keyword search which seems odd, preferring to have development / pre-production / production or filming / post production, but it also actually seems quite logical to go the way this article has gone with Development / Casting / Filming / Cinematography / Costumes / Post-production / Soundtrack. So at this point I'm fine with how things are, but suggest this part might need more work in future Mujinga (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Costumes

[edit]
  • inauthentic fur - "fake fur"?
 Done Rusted AutoParts 00:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • wikilink shearling
 Done Rusted AutoParts 00:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • didn’t - "did not"
 Done Rusted AutoParts 00:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • since this is only one paragraph i'm not seeing the need for its own section
I feel it's warranting. It can't be merged with other aspects of the production section (Filming, Cinematography, etc.) Rusted AutoParts 00:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the answer, on re-reading it seems fine, particularly as its a subsection of production Mujinga (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Post-production

[edit]
  • won't - "will not"
 Done Rusted AutoParts 00:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rusted AutoParts 00:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • again this is just one paragraph so it doesn't need its own section
I have the same issue as Costume design. It's detail that can't really be included in another section other than it's own. Rusted AutoParts 00:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
sure, same answer as above Mujinga (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack

[edit]
  • Tears in rain should be "Tears in rain"
  • The last sentence can join to previous paragraph. I'm ok with this being its own section since it has a separate article
 Done all Rusted AutoParts 00:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Premieres

[edit]
  • This can be made into a single paragraph
  • *October 3, 2017 - "October 3, 2017," with second comma
  • is there a reason for it to be 1.90:1? Source says "1.9:1"
  • Sony Pictures Releasing, who - "Sony Pictures Releasing, which"
 Done all Rusted AutoParts 01:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prequels

[edit]
  • May 5, 2017 - "May 5, 2017," with second comma
 Done Rusted AutoParts 19:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing

[edit]
  • This isn't needed.
 Done Rusted AutoParts 19:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Home media

[edit]
  • It should be Blade Runner 2049
Would "The film was" work too? Rusted AutoParts 01:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
sure! Mujinga (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is so short it doesn't need to be its own section
Home media typically requires it's own section. Rusted AutoParts 01:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is a suggested section under Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film, I would argue it's so small it could be added elswhere, but I'm fine with your rationale. Mujinga (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship in Turkey

[edit]
  • This is interesting but doesn't need its own section, maybe better under premieres.
  • The scenes that featured nudity and sex were digitally zoomed. - source isn't really saying this, it seems to be saying nude scenes were cut
 Done all Rusted AutoParts 17:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Box office

[edit]
  • In this section "%" is used but in other places eg filming, "percent" is used, so that needs to be standardised across the article
 Done Rusted AutoParts 17:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Critical response

[edit]
  • This starts off well but goes on a bit long and some of the quotes aren't really necessary, for example the Graeme Virtue quote doesn't add much and we already have the Bradshaw quote from the same newspaper. It's good to have some dissenting voices at the end, so maybe consider purging the middle section a bit.
  • 1927 Metropolis reads weirdly, maybe better "Metropolis (1927)", if it stays
  • don't know if this quote is really needed either, but at the moment only on of "industrialist (Jared Leto portraying Wallace)" and "industrialist played by Jared Leto" is needed
  • would be good to have some discussion of the 3D here, since i remember this being a hot topic when the film came out
Section presently under extensive overhaul by DAP. Rusted AutoParts 23:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
wow much better! i think this article is now approaching FA quality, where I would suggest adding some reviews about the 3D screenings, but that's not necessary for GA level Mujinga (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation of the final scene

[edit]
  • This can be moved into critical response.
 Done Cnbrb (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Cnbrb (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Social commentary

[edit]
  • Great to see this section! I think it could be a subsection under critical response
 Done - moved to critical response Cnbrb (talk) 09:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • controversial aspects of the sex scene - a sentence explaining who is in the sex scene would be helpful
 Done Cnbrb (talk) 09:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the last paragraph isn't really social commentary
 Done - moved elsewhere in critical response Cnbrb (talk) 09:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accolades

[edit]
  • maybe add in Deakins as winner of the cinematography oscar
  • this paragraph needs some citations
 Done all Rusted AutoParts 17:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Future

[edit]
  • not keen on future as heading
This one is a common formatting. It's mostly due to, despite the franchise being looked at to continue, a film sequel isn't guaranteed. By going "Future", we can tool it around any future developments, be it sequel or a show or comic, etc. Rusted AutoParts 02:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, i tend to refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film and I don't see it there, maybe it should be added. Mujinga (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also

[edit]
  • ok

Notes

[edit]
  • it's a good note, could be moved to "Interpretation of the final scene"
If I'm remembering correctly, it's placement in Plot was a result of putting an end to an edit war/multiple editors making an incorrect assertion about the ending. Rusted AutoParts 17:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
 Done all Rusted AutoParts 17:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
  • ok

Overall comments

[edit]

@DAP389: has had a major hand in the fine tuning of the article. Pinging to let them input. Rusted AutoParts 02:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late response. I’ll try to address these concerns as soon as I can. DAP 💅 21:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya @Rusted AutoParts:, @Cnbrb: and @DAP389:, just checking in as reviewer since it's been a week. I'm fine with the hold going on a bit longer since I can see the changes are being made, just ping me when the article is finished to your satisfaction. By the way, it's cool to see a few different people all collaborating together! Mujinga (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mujinga: hi, there's a few note i've left you in various sections. Rusted AutoParts 15:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just made a couple of updates on the parts I was familiar with. It's quieter now that the culture warriors have stopped disruptive content deletions, which makes it easier to make constructive edits. Thanks for the feedback on the article.Cnbrb (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's still happening unfortunately. Just reverted another deletion of the social commentary section yesterday. Rusted AutoParts 16:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. It does attract tiresome manbabies who can't cope with being exposed to views that differ from their own. How wearying! Thanks for reverting. Cnbrb (talk) 09:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hi again @Rusted AutoParts:, @Cnbrb: and @DAP389:, on a quick look it seems the GA edits have tailed off and so i'm happy to do another run through on tuesday or wednesday. there have been some referencing changes (as discussed on the talkpage), as long as that's all consistent then it's fine. regarding the vandalism, perhaps it's worth getting the page semi-protected at some point. cheers, Mujinga (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was just allowing some time for the other contributing editors to get their changes in (avoid toe stepping and such). I'll start up editing the page again tomorrow. Rusted AutoParts 18:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. @Mujinga: I believe all the points have been addressed, and any points that need further discussion have comments left under them. I think @DAP389: has finished on the Critical reception section, so it should be good to be looked at. Rusted AutoParts 18:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
great, i'll have a look tomoro! Mujinga (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
going over it now Mujinga (talk) 10:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rusted AutoParts: and also @Cnbrb: and @DAP389:, I am finishing the review and approving to Good Article status. I was expecting when returning to this review to find further work needing doing but the article has been much improved. I have left some comments above just now but nothing stands in the way of this being a GA. It's been a pleasure to see different people all working on the article! Further, it seems to me from its size and quality to be a viable Featured Article candidate. Mujinga (talk) 10:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Happy to have made a small contribution. Cnbrb (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blade_Runner_2049/GA2&oldid=1057806562"