Talk:Dunkirk (2017 film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ribbet32 (talk · contribs) 01:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been drafted for this review, if you forgive the terminology. Soon to come Ribbet32 (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written:

1a Generally good, the Guild has reviewed. However, in lede "boats that participated in the evacuation" is confusing. If they were the real boats in the real evacuation, say "historic boats". Also, "participated" in unusual for non-living things- "used in"? Plot makes sense even tho I haven't seen this; it should say Winston Churchill was U.K. Prime Minister Release, in an oddly coincidental way, repeats Following Following. Why not, "Following in September 1998. Following"? Critical response moves back and forth from spelling out numbers ("four") and not ("4") and "four out of four" seems incomplete to me- stars are what's counted. 1b Top ten subsection is rather messy and unappealing in appearance. Consider tabling, perhaps, though not necessarily, the same as I did with my 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days For organization as well, the Cast section randomly includes bits and pieces of Casting information and it should me moved to Casting.

Changed lead. Established Churchill as prime minister. Changed "Following" to "After". Changed numbers to prose, mentioned stars. A table would be too long (that's why I moved the accolades table to another page); the rate of list inclusions warrants columns. Moved info to casting. Cognissonance (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Stars" removed by copy editor, whose edit summary makes sense. Cognissonance (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with giving the reader a little context and noting it was Sept 1998? Also, the Critical section still mixes, saying "3.5three and a half out of four". Cast still includes Casting information ("Whitehead was cast in the lead after a secretive auditioning process lasting several months", etc) Ribbet32 (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added "nineteen years prior" instead, as the source didn't specify an exact date. Typo has been redressed. Cast info moved. Cognissonance (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also preferred format for numbers one to nine is as words; MOS:NUMERAL refers MapReader (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re 2b layout: in addition to tabling the critics' list, I would also suggest converting the Cast section into an infobox placed adjacent to Casting per WP:CASTLIST; you saw how I did this with Wings of Desire Ribbet32 (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I previewed the cast list table, and it looks terrible, even after several tries to make it look better. It pushes the prose into ugly shapes, and since it isn't obligatory, I would prefer bullet points, which make the list look more like horizontal spires. Cognissonance (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphans, they're called, what the table shoves the paragraphs into. Cognissonance (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable with no original research

~~Review pending .~~

Broad in its coverage:

It's not missing any sections that a film article should have, but some subsections are extremely stubby and would qualify for tagging (Template:Expand section) This is particularly true of Home media (which may as well be merged with the main Release section) and Accolades, which may change quite drastically once Oscar nominations are announced, and again after the ceremony- see #5

Merged Home media with Release. Accolades will not change drastically, it will expand by one line. The section is there to justify awards mentions in the lead, as the main article is elsewhere. Cognissonance (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accolades is still extremely stubby. The subarticle includes more of an introduction, and can be copied and pasted from Ribbet32 (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cognissonance (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

4. I'd cut down on the use of the word "praise" in Historical accuracy- particularly since sources in the opposite direction have been omitted ‘Dunkirk’ is full of inaccuracies. And then there are omissions Why the lack of Indian and African faces in Dunkirk matters

Changed wording. What was omitted did not count as historical inaccuracies. Cognissonance (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources still regarded those as important. NPOV requires balance. Ribbet32 (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK Cognissonance (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

5. stability is a big concern here, with Oscar nominations not even announced yet and the theatrical run not even completed. ~~Box office has a Template:As of outdated by a month.~~ If it sweeps the Oscars, even the lede would have to look drastically different. I suppose it's less of a challenge than Barack Obama being featured before he even became President, and maintaining his bronze star throughout all eight years, but can the nominator justify why this had to be nominated now?

The theatrical run ended on 23 November, per Box Office Mojo. The film is simply in its re-release to create buzz for the Oscars. The lead would expand by one line if it wins / gets nominated. I have funnelled a lot of traffic to List of awards and nominations received by Dunkirk, and that's where it will remain during awards season. The article is nominated now because it addresses the main aspects of the topic, awards are ancillary information, like home media, which does not complete an article but simply adds to it. Cognissonance (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

6. Poster is attributed, this is an easy one for free images

Just a small point, but as per the MOS please note that the correct abbreviation is 'UK', not 'U.K.' MapReader (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 2 review ~~"Nolan researched as tho it were a doc"- should change to "Nolan said he researched as tho it were a doc", since the source doesn't verify his self-congratulatory claim.~~ Would recommend using Template:Sfn for book footnotes. Debruge, according to both the live and archived ref, is misquoted with ""Nolan has found a way to harness that technique in service of a kind of heightened reality, one that feels more immersive and immediate than whatever concerns we check at the door."- the actual quote doesn't 100% match up with that. With Travers, "that genre" he refers to as raised to art-level is the survival film, not the war film. Yorkshire ref does not seem to support the bit in Historical accuracy about the RAF dogfighting with the Germans on limited fuel. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changed wording. WP:CITEVAR says it stays, but I will consider it for the future. Replaced Debruge quote with better one, used brackets to clarify what was not in the original quote. Clarified Travers quote. It was Slate that substantiated that claim, moved source to right place. Cognissonance (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just an observation, but there are so many citation numbers now that some of the sections are getting harder to read. For example Filming. Most articles don't seem to need quite so many references, nor to repeat the same citation so many times? Citations halfway through sentences, sometimes not even preceded by punctuation, compounds the problem. MapReader (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An example: I read in one source that they used snorkel lenses, and in another that they also used periscope lenses - that's two sources right there. With the information that cameras were in the front and back, the sources accumulate, but there's always a reason for it.

As to citations in the middle of sentences, this helps the reader find exactly which source substantiates what. Cognissonance (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but WP citation policy is that this is only done where the word or point is likely to be particularly contentious. Otherwise citations go at the end of a phrase or ideally sentence. There is also a trade-off between readability and thoroughness of citation, and article is (in my opinion) getting close to off-balance. In particular it isn't obvious why some phrases need multiple citations. MapReader (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Cognissonance (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't personally wrinkle my nose at footnotes, and don't regard that as a priority, but the reference section is still a little untidy and would reiterate using Template:Sfn for book sources. If critics' lists are tabled, you could probably place the ref in one field instead of the messy a-av in ref 171 as well. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still think a critics' list table would be too long and unwieldy. It's not unheard of to keep with bullet points on a GA. Cognissonance (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was six years ago, and the bare list is unwieldy, and WP:GOFISHING. There are a few more outstanding issues- reference formatting, updating box office. Ribbet32 (talk) 06:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ribbet32: I was fishing, but doesn't WP:STYLEVAR still apply? And regarding the reference section, WP:CITEVAR? What about the box office needs updating? It says in the source what it made and when it ceased its run, both of which are in the article. Cognissonance (talk) 11:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those guidelines refer to not edit warring over style or citations. No edit war is taking place; if it were, the article would be auto failed for stability. They don't preclude a discussion on what would look/function best. We'll see what Mapreader thinks; in the meantime, the box office, as I said, includes a Template:As of referring to a month ago. If the info in the source hasn't changed, updating would be a simple matter of replacing it with {{As of|2017|12|23}}, and updating he URL retrieved in the web citation template. Ribbet32 (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So next month we need to change it again, and then again after that? Why change it at all when we know why the date in Box Office Mojo hasn't changed? It marks the end of the theatrical release, which resulted the cited gross. Cognissonance (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When its theatrical run finally ends, the template can simply be removed completely, and the article can state it completed its theatrical run. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updated then. ~~I will spend some time previewing a table of the critics' list, but length was the very reason I put it in columns, and a table cannot be done the same way.~~ Cognissonance (talk) 18:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MapReader: What is your view on the issue? Cognissonance (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The top ten list section, and the references that point to it, are horrible, and I am not sure why it is there at all. MOS:FILM says Do not add critics' top-ten lists on which a film appears, except on a case-by-case basis subject to consensus - I don't recall any suggestion that Dunkirk is a special case, or any consensus on this? On the technical details of which template to use I will pass, not having the detailed knowledge, unless someone can point to an example of how it might look. MapReader (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ribbet32: I'm convinced. You both agree it is cluttering, and I just want to stop going in circles arguing about it. I could just delete the list altogether, based on the guideline, which I wasn't aware of until now. Cognissonance (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would just junk the whole section. It shouldn't be there - it's a hostage to fortune as editors will find more and more obscure lists to add; once we accept one, it becomes open season - and I haven't seen anything like it on another film page. There was quite a discussion about top tens during the recent MOS:FILM wikiproject review, and the consensus amongst the long-time film editors was strongly opposed. Hence the wording in the revised MOS MapReader (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments I still hate cast sections and rue the day when they became accepted and then even expected parts of film articles, and still think that this article could be subject to important updates, but then, so could all articles on Wikipedia. Barack Obama was a major case, and even Augustus could require massive updates if tomorrow researchers discovered five previously unknown biographies written about him by Tacitus while archaeologists dig up his secret chamber filled with his state documents and personal journal. Other concerns have been addressed, and I can appreciate if the author feels nixing the top 10s was a sore sacrifice (for the record, I was willing to compromise there and simply have the section beautified). Passing. Ribbet32 (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Ribbet32, and thank you MapReader for copy editing the article over the months, to where it is now. Cognissonance (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for passing and congrats to Cognissonance for doing the boring bit and getting us over the line! I think there are enough regular editors following this page that we'll be able to keep improving it and update after the award ceremonies etc. One advantage of cast sections is that people don't need to litter the rest of the article with actors' names in brackets. And much better without the top ten section, which was a spam invitation par excellence! Happy Crimbo to one and all... MapReader (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]