Jump to content

Talk:Christopher Nolan/GA3

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: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 10:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Lead
  • "creative force" might be a bit too strong I think, even if true. "The creator of several of the 21st century's most successful films" would be good enough in my opinion.
 Done
  • Chronologically I'd place The Dark Knight trilogy (2005–2012) and Inception (2010) in that order rather than the other way around.
 Done
  • I think you should state which films won Academy Awards in the lead, there's currently no mention of them at all.
Early life
  • Split with Chicago? Why was this? I gather it was because of his mother's family but if you could find anything else about it, like what school he attended there or whatever that would be good.
  • "UCL's best recent shorts" -I wouldn't consider 1996 to be recent!
 Done
  • Perhaps mention that Following was also produced with Emma and Jeremy Theobald?
 Done
Memento, Insomnia and Batman Begins
  • Given that it was considered one of the best films of the year, I'd like to see one or two quotes from critics for Memento.
 Done
  • Not sure why you need to say "human" Batman film, it's not like all previous films had been cartoons. I'd probably write it as "In early 2003, Nolan approached Warner Bros. with the idea to make a Batman film grounded in a "relatable" world more reminiscent of a classical drama than a comic-book fantasy."
 Done
  • "Daniel Etherington of Film4 described it as "a blockbuster with more intelligence than most."" I think that should go below the cast where you mention highest grossing.
 Done
The Prestige and The Dark Knight

The Dark Knight definitely needs at least two quotes from critics I think given its status. I'd prefer to read about the themes and concepts in that part of the article but I see you've written a themes section mentioning the basics which is OK.

 Done

I'm not too happy with the wording of "Before its release, several reports suggested that the film was too complex to appeal to a broad audience and would struggle at the box office.[61] In an article appearing in The Wall Street Journal, industry executives noted that the commercial prospects of Inception could influence the industry as a whole.[62] Veteran producer John Davis said, "I can promise you that heads of studios are already going into production meetings saying we need fresh ideas for summer movies, we want original concepts like Inception that are big and bold enough to carry themselves"." -to me it appears a little convoluted with a bit too much weight placed on it. I think you can say the same thing in rather less words.

 Done
  • $1-billion -is a hyphen needed, I'm not sure?
  • For Man of Steel it needs the year in brackets and I think you should also elaborate more on the "mixed reception" with a few quotes and also mention the cast.
 Done
Film making
  • Link monochrome unless it's been linked already?
 Done
  • "His films draw heavily on film noir, with Nolan noting that he identifies all his films with that genre" - a little awkward, perhaps reword as "Nolan has noted that all of his films are heavily influenced by film noir".
 Done
  • ""When you think of a visual style, when you think of the visual language of a film, there tends to be a natural separation of the visual style and the narrative elements. But with the greats, whether it's Stanley Kubrick or Terrence Malick or Hitchcock, what you're seeing is an inseparable, a vital relationship between the image and the story it's telling"." -attribute quote.
 Done
  • I feel that this section could use a few quotes or analysis from commentators on his works rather than just quoting Nolan, it might provide more depth to it, just a suggestion. "If I don't need to be directing the shots that go in the movie, why do I need to be there at all? The screen is the same size for every shot. The little shot of, say, a watch on someone's wrist, will occupy the same screen size as the shot of a thousand people running down the street. Everything is equally weighted and needs to be considered with equal care, I really do believe that. I don't understand the criteria for parceling things off. Many action films embrace a second unit taking on all of the action. For me, that's odd because then why did you want to do an action film?" is a huge quote, too long in my opinion which I think affects the quality of prose.
 Done

Again with "Alec Price and M. Dawson of Left Field Cinema, noted that the "existential crises of conflicted male figures struggling with the slippery nature of identity" is a prevalent theme in Nolan's work. "For this director the only thing in this world that is real is what we decide to accept into our conscience. Actuality is far less important than the way in which we absorb, interpolate and remember, and it is this "created reality" that truly matters ... it is solely in the mind and the heart where any sense of permanency or equilibrium can ever be found."" I think the layout affects the flow, I'd paraphrase in part. Same with the Todd McGowan quote below, not a fan of the long placed quotes without words leading to them.

  • With the themes section I'd merge some of the short paragraphs and try to improve the flow with paraphrasing the quotes as suggested above into something more readable and less rough around the edges.
 Done
Collaborators
  • Some over linking of actors there but it is OK to link again for convenience. Up to you of course.
Awards and honors
  • Not a fan of bullet points, please convert to prose and merge some of them.
Refs
  • What makes ref 56 a RS?
    • replaced with a New York Times article
  • Ref 68-71, 95-6, 110, 174 publishers?
  • Ref 85, Capitalize Variety
  • Ref 91, appears to be a blog, aren't there more reputable sources?
I see, a pity they can't extend their film expertise to sprucing up their site more then!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 93 Rope of Silicon a RS?
    • I think so. It's not academic, but its one of the bigger sites featuring film news, analysis and reviews outside the trades. Also been online since 2003.
  • More dodgy looking sources at 126-8 like flickeringmyth.com, Firstshowing.net. joblo.com, indielondon.co.uk, backstage.com
  • Ref 142 - It should have full info and presented as The Hollywood Reporter in italics, ref 147 needs italics too
  • There's quite a few inconsistencies in italicizing publications and writing the websites in lower casing. bbcamerica.com for example I'd expect and prefer to be written as BBC America. Huffington Post is also inconsistent, huffingtonpost.co.uk vs Huffington Post. I'd prefer you to write the name rather than the web address as often as possible, please do go through all of the sources and try to ensure that they're consistent and in publishing name as much as possible.

I've got my hands on some literature, and I plan to replace sources when I have read through the stuff. However, I don't really have the time to do that in coming weeks. I must admit I considered that work for a potential FA nomination in future. Sammyjankis88 (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overall the main problem for me is your use of quotes which affects the prose quality at present and not enough critical insight into the films. It's a little rough to read, particularly in the lower sections. I think you should paraphrase a few quotes from a wider range of critics in the career section and try to diminish the bulk of Nolan's quotes. Some of them are useful but some of them are a bit superfluous. I'd like so see a bit more analysis of his work from professional commentators given than he is one of the top directors under analysis; most of the quotes in the lower sections are from Nolan and I think it would improve the quality by balancing them out more. Quite a lot of problems with the selection of sources used, for somebody like Nolan I'd really expect useage of those lower end websites at a minimum. Please do try to replace as many of them as possible with more reputable news outlets and perhaps introduce more book sources if you can. Other than this the article looks to have the basics necessary for GA but as I feel it needs quite a lot of work until it is ready, I'll place on hold until the improvements are made.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Doc, thanks again for taking on the review for Sammy. I don't consider myself a co-nominator, but am keeping an eye on proceedings. You raised many good points above, but I just wanted to point out this essay, which states that bulleted lists don't need to be removed for GA status, and that sources don't need to be formatted correctly. I agree that these changes would be ideal, and they can be fixed further down the line, but if we only focus on the GA criteria (which actually aren't too demanding) I think the article may be okay as it stands? Your call of course, but I just wanted to point those things out to you in case you weren't aware - cheers! --Loeba (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree, but if Sammy and yourself want to go further with it eventually then it's probably best that the changes are done now as I'm sure somebody else would bring it up at FAC. It's starting to look better, I'll give it a read over the weekend but if you could edit Loeba when you have time and perhaps address some of the points too in terms of the prose and quote balance and try to polish it a little I think it would be a more comfortable pass. Obviously I'm prepared to pass it as I wouldn't have put in on hold. There's no rush, but do let me know if you think you've really both addressed it to the best you can and I'll take another look at it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sammy has said that he plans to make use of book sources but will need more time, so I don't think FAC is on the cards for a while (and as you say, along with the need for more thorough research it needs a fair bit of polish before that can be considered). I just thought it was probably decent enough for GA so recommended that he nominate it - it's nice to get that recognition in the meantime. I can take a look over it at the weekend if you definitely think it's necessary. --Loeba (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Already looking much improved. Prose is now up to an acceptable standard in my opinion. Sammy can you find the retrieved date for ref 113 and 119 and fill out ref 187? Also make sure names are consistently formatted with surname first, refs 59-61 for instance aren't, and remove the first names from the book sources like Jesser, Pourroy. Jesser will do. Sammy I think this is passable as it is, but it might be more constructive if I continue to make suggestions and we see further improvements first to hold it in good stead should you decide to nom for FA in the future. Offhand I'd suggest doing a google book search for Christopher Nolan and any one of his films and seeing if you can pick up info in google books, quotes or angles on any of his films which could be added to improve the depth of coverage in his career section. I found a quote earlier about Insomnia film noir and Nolan inventing his own genre which I really think is valuable. Xlibris isn't an ideal book publisher, but I think the quote is too valuable to ignore, and I'm sure there's other ones you'll pick up from other books which might add a bit more depth. I also found an interesting comparison here exploring Memento which I briefly noted. I think if you can add a little flesh to some of the films from books like this it will end up a considerably stronger article. In my opinion too the big table in awards would look better in his awards article and it would be better to write a high quality prose piece on his Academy Awards and others and polish up what is already written. I'm also not keen on the diagrams, I think they look amateurish and you'd be better off adding photographs indirectly related to him like his collaborators, or requesting some images of him on set etc from flickr or whatever. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pass it as it is I think, but I do hope you'll continue to work on it as I suggested. Kudos to you and Loeba!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I really don't deserve any of the praise, but I'm pleased the see the article pass - congrats Sammy! --Loeba (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

The minor quibbles above and suggestions aside, I'm very pleased with how this has progressed and now reads much better than it did a few weeks ago. I think it's now a clear pass. However, I feel it still needs a lot of work to really do a director such as Nolan justice, particularly in improving the quality of what is written about each film in the career section which I think can be further improved by extensive research into books and journals. What about analysis into his cinematic devices like lighting, music etc? I hope you'll continue to improve this as suggested and look forward to seeing it at FAC eventually. Congratulations, it got here at last!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for passing, Dr. Blofeld, and for taking your time writing a thorough review with constructive criticism. Will continue to work on it and look into the issues already raised. It's been a busy few weeks, but I hope I can get back to it soon. Also a huge thanks to the always wonderful Loeba (talk). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammyjankis88 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christopher_Nolan/GA3&oldid=1151014746"