Talk:Cecil B. DeMille/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Lizzy150 (talk · contribs) 22:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Skyes(BYU):, I've been looking through the media and drama articles and saw that you were meant to have GA review of this, which never happened. However, I'll gladly pick this up! The article appears to be very comprehensive, well written and reliably sourced with books. I have read the entire article. It is definitely one of the "better" filmmaker biographies, and undoubtedly qualifies as a GA.

There is nothing major that I would change because (1) it is already detailed and (2) writing style is down to personal taste and very subjective. However, here are my comments:

Intro

"highest-grossing film of the time" — could we bit a bit more specific and state "of 1950"?
"DeMille's reputation as a filmmaker has improved over time" — could we change "improve" to "been recognized" or "been acknowledged"? He is no longer alive and we are talking about what has happened since his death.

Rest of the article..

"had been born on July 25, 1878" — do you mean "was born"?
"was suffering from his failure plays" — could we rephrase it to "failed plays" or "the failure of his plays"
"declaring it a wildlife sanctuary no shooting of animals was allowed besides snakes" — I think you're missing a word after "sanctuary"
"may have led to the being received as uncharacteristically substandard" — I think you're missing the word "film" after "the"
"previous 11 reels" — should it be "eleven reels" if we're expressing numbers as words?
"Charlie Chaplin" — perhaps link to his Wikipedia article
"He had completely adapted to the production of sound film besides his poor dialogue" — do you mean "despite the films' poor dialogue"?
"viewed over 800 million times around the world" — should we mention that "DeMille calculated that the film had been viewed over 800 million times.."?
"DeMille followed this epic uncharacteristically with two released dramas in 1933 and 1934" — should it be "dramas released"? (word order)
"DeMille voted for Proposition 12" — what was Proposition 12 about? Is it worth mentioning?
"Furthermore, DeMille's film won the Academy Award for Best Picture" — perhaps link to the 25th Academy Awards? Also, didn't the Greatest Show On Earth win an Academy Award for Best Story? Doesn't that need to be mentioned?
Could you possibly put the following sentences at the end of its paragraph, since it makes sense to talk about the production first, then the achievements afterwards. Same goes for anywhere else in the article:

Nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture, it grossed over $80 million, which surpassed the gross of The Greatest Show on Earth and every other film in history, except for Gone with the Wind.[160] A unique practice at the time, DeMille offered ten percent of his profit to the crew.

"After his death, notable new outlets" — missing the letter 's' after new
"Martin Scorsese related that DeMille had the skill" — do you mean "recalled", not "related"?
"the greatest special effect movie history" - missing the word "in" after "effect"
In the Filmmaking and Legacy sections, ensure that there are links to other articles if they're important enough or not linked before. For example, "French New Wave" could be linked. I know it's not a requirement but it may be helpful to readers.
Reference 290 is taking me to a "Not Found" page. Try adding the archived URL or finding the reference again.

That is all for now! The article appears to be professional, stable, broadly covered, neutral and well-illustrated with images. Thanks, Lizzy (talk 22:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lizzy150:, thanks for being willing to review the article despite its length. I have addressed each of your points and am in the process of adding more wikilinks to the filmmaking and legacy sections. Thanks for your suggestions! Skyes(BYU) (talk) 20:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyes(BYU): Whilst this article easily passes for a GA, I'll try to give you some more feedback soon because I assume you want this at FA status one day! I'm not an expert on requirements, but will try to give hints on what reviewers will expect. Thanks, Lizzy (talk 22:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I would definitely love any feedback. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lizzy150:, I don't want to bother you if you're busy, but if think this article meets GA standards as is, would you mind passing it? If you still want to give me feedback, you can when you have some extra time, but I was hoping to have this GA review closed and no longer pending so I don't have to worry about it during Christmas break. Thank you! Skyes(BYU) (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh goodness sorry, completely forgot. Thanks for reminding me! Happy to confirm it is professionally written, well-researched and verifiable. No copyright violations detected. Broad, neutral and stable. Appropriately illustrated. If I have feedback in the future, I'll add it to the article's talk page. Many thanks, Lizzy (talk 21:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]