This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Westerns, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Western genre on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WesternsWikipedia:WikiProject WesternsTemplate:WikiProject WesternsWesterns articles
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
@Rachel Helps (BYU): I have added everything I can find to the article. It turns out there isn't much out there about the film. Could you check over what I added? Could you also make sure my plot summary doesn't have close paraphrasing? I couldn't find the film to watch it, so I had to rely on TCM for the synopsis. Thanks, Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Heidi, it sounds like a complicated plot with a lot of characters. I agree that ideally, someone who has seen the film would summarize it for us, but we make do with what information we have. There is a cool tool you can use called Earwig's copyvio detector. It doesn't show close paraphrasing, but it does show what phrases are the same. I used this to find a few phrases to change. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so I'm going to take a look at some of those similar phrases and see what I can do to change them up. Also, the connection with sterotyped acting isn't super explicit in the review, so I'll see what I can do about concocting an explanation that does not brink on original research. Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what the Variety review says:
"In the proper spot this film cannot hurt any program. Caught on the bottom half of a double bill picture fitted okay. It's a hybrid for plot, but it has several moments of hard riding, machine gun shooting, and a couple of killings. Dialogue isn't smart but understandable and if the acting is stereotyped it doesn't matter. Starts with the hero..." (cited in article)
Here is what I currently have:
"Variety called the acting "stereotyped" but added that it 'doesn't matter'. The magazine also stated that the 'dialogue isn't smart but understandable'."
Here are some ideas for clarifying this part. Let me know which work best, if any.
"According to Variety, the "stereotyped" acting "doesn't matter" in comparison to the film's high-energy action." (This one I'm not so sure about)
"Variety stated that the film's 'acting is stereotyped', though it contains sequences of high-energy action."
"Variety stated that the 'dialogue isn't smart but understandable' and the 'acting is stereotyped'."
You are okay to do the first one ("in comparison to the film's high-energy action")! You are making an inference about the meaning of the text, but I believe it is accurate (if anyone else disagrees, please comment). Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
