Talk:Fanny and Alexander/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ssven2 (talk · contribs) 09:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I will review this article. Thank you.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments

General

• Some cases, you have written "Bergman", and at other times, "Ingmar" (for example:"Ingmar's relationship with his sister Margareta during their shared childhood is depicted through the character Fanny, who is included in the title though she is not as large a character as Alexander. Bergman had previously modeled characters after his mother, Karin Åkerblom, as simultaneously "virgin and seductress": Emilie also fits that self-contradictory design."). Be consistent with this (If the names of wither "Ingmar" or "Bergman" or both together show up in quotes as quoted by someone, then leave it as it is).
  • It became necessary to refer to Ingmar in paragraphs dealing with more than one Bergman to avoid confusion. I'm otherwise not on a first-name basis with Mr. Bergman. Ribbet32 (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Section-wise

• "who becomes abusive towards Alexander for his vivid imagination." — Alexander isn't mentioned before this. Do clarify in the lead by saying it as "who becomes abusive towards one of the siblings, Alexander, for his vivid imagination."
  • Actually, it refers to the eponymous children before then: "http://www.dictionary.com/browse/eponymous eponymous: being the person after whom a literary work, film, etc, is named"
• "The documentary film The Making of Fanny and Alexander was made simultaneously with the feature and documents its production." — Write a synonymous word for "documents" to avoid repetition of "document".
  • Tweaked Ribbet32 (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
• "Alexander had fantasized about his stepfather's death while living with Isak. Isak's mysterious nephew," — "Isak" right after one another. Rephrase the sentence. Maybe like "Alexander had fantasized about his stepfather's death while living with Isak. Ismael Retzinsky, Isak's mysterious nephew,, explains that fantasy can become true as he dreams it."
  • Tweaked Ribbet32 (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• "Bergman intended the film to be his last feature film" — Avoid repetition of "film". Can be written as "Bergman intended it to be his last feature film".
  • Tweaked Ribbet32 (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• "although he wrote several screenplays afterwards and directed for television." — Is this line sourced? If not, do source it.
  • Yes Ribbet32 (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
• The second paragraph of the "Pre-production" section has many instances of the word "for" close to one another. Vary the sentences a little bit.
  • Tweaked Ribbet32 (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• "On the first day of photography, Bergman decided to stage a pillow fight, which Wallgren credited for putting her at ease." — Was she nervous on the first day? She would've been. A bit more clarity would be required in mentioning that.
  • Tweaked Ribbet32 (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• "Portraying the burning Aunt Elsa, a male stunt performer was actually burned by spilled napalm." — Did the performer die or survive? Again, a bit more clarity would be required in mentioning that.
  • Tweaked Ribbet32 (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
• "Note d shows one big statement/quote. Either try trimming it and explaining it or put it in a quotebox. The former would be better.
  • Trimmed again Ribbet32 (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
• "relatable though more specific in its story" — Do you mean Ebert says the characters are relatable to the audience? Do clarify.
  • Tweaked Ribbet32 (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
• "As a student, the film was shown as" — Was the actor an actual student the time he saw the film or does it refer to "student of cinema" kind of thing?
  • Tweaked Ribbet32 (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Source review

• Ref no. 102 — Is JP's Box office a reliable source? Can you find a better alternative?
  • It's used throughout English and French Wikipedia, which may not mean much, but it has also been used as a source in published books by scholars [1] [2] [3] (p 60). Ribbet32 (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
• Add the "subscription required" tag for References 145, 147 and 148.
  • Done Ribbet32 (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
• Change the ISBN in Bibliography to ISBN-13 (all of them) like how you have done in this article for one of the books
  • Don't understand this one. The template does not recognize "ISBN-13" ("Unknown parameter") Ribbet32 (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I looked at the tool you left on my user talk. It looks like it's from some US site rather than ISBN's international official website, and when I tried one it converted an ISBN into a random string of numbers that could no longer bring up the correct edition of the book. Since the ISBNs are correctly copied from the actual book sources, I don't see this as a required "fix". Ribbet32 (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
      • The books appear correctly for the first four after placing the isbn-13 number though, year and all. I checked them myself.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 04:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
        • Ssven, I don't understand this sudden concern with removing referencing information and making ISBNs unusable. Verification is a GA criterion. Also, it's hard to do much given the constant edit conflicts, and there's really no reason to split the review between here and my user talk. Ribbet32 (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
          • Quite right. As you pointed out "Since the ISBNs are correctly copied from the actual book sources, I don't see this as a required "fix"". I do apologise if I was persistent about it.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 04:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "Haenni, Sabine; Barrow, Sarah; White, John, eds. (2014). The Routledge Encyclopedia of Films (Revised ed.). Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-68261-5"
• Page numbers missing for Reference nos 83, 100 and 116.
  • Unfortunately, those pg numbers are unavailable to me, but I noted the chapters in the first two. The third is Maltin, his book is in alpha order. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

That's about it from me, Ribbet32. Good job expanding the article on such a significant landmark film in Bergman's career. Address these comments and the article will be promoted.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 13:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.

   Pass or Fail:

@Ribbet32: Thank you for addressing my comments, and congratulations. Another Bergman film promoted.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 04:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)