Talk:James Dean (2001 film)/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hello, I will be reviewing this page later today. At first glance, the page looks strong in terms of content. I imagine that copy-editing will be the central aspect of my review. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broad suggestions

I am going to start with some broad suggestions for improvement. Copy-editing suggestions will come later. That way, we can neatly address each group of issues. Here are the suggestions:

File:JamesDeanfilmposter2.jpg is a DVD cover image, not a poster image. I recommend re-uploading with a correct file name and using {{Non-free video cover}} in the description. Also needs a source. See File:Kings Go Forth DVD cover.jpg as an example.
In the "Cast" section, boldface should be removed. The formatting is usually reserved for multi-line items so readers can pick out names with ease. This is not necessary to do here.
The "Production" section has "Writing", "Development", and "Casting" subsections. It is understandable that there is not enough context for a "Filming" subsection, but I think that either the headings could be re-titled to be broader or some content can be re-shuffled so filming detail does not erroneously fall under "Development".
Have you considered adding a free image of James Franco to the article, likely the "Cast" section? The article comments on the similarity, after all.

I will try to do some copy-editing myself, but I will keep it minor and leave it up to you for any problematic sentences that I may not be able to address. Let me know if you have any questions about these broad suggestions! —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I have already fixed your general concerns above. What's next? Wildroot (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot suggestions are below. For the image, can the caption be replaced with a duplication of the "uncanny resemblance" reference from the "Casting" subsection? I think it would provide greater justification. Also suggest tweaking the "purpose of use" on the image description page with explaining the significance. (The ten points aren't needed; these came from a time when editors like me were trying to cover our butts too much.) —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot suggestions

As you can tell, I gave the "Plot" section a minor copy-editing. There are a few points that could be clarified in this section:

The section starts off with calling James Dean "eight years old", but after that, there is no true context for age. Like what year was it when he was eight, and around how old was he when he started his acting career?
"James asks his mother why Winton shows a lack of love for his son, but she only blames the family problems on herself. The entire situation becomes more devastating for young James when Mildred dies of cancer in 1940." The first sentence seems disjointed... maybe clarify that she blames herself for Winton's lack of love? For the second sentence, "devastating" is a dramatic word choice. Can the sentence be rewritten to be a little clearer about how the situation becomes worse? Is it hard to get by, or is there just no love between anyone?
"James moves to Hollywood in April 1954 to begin filming for Eden, where he upsets Raymond Massey (playing his screen father) with his method acting." Can it be explained how Massey got upset? Too convincing, too over-the-top, what?
I have mixed feelings about the last couple of sentences. The "final shot" sentence and the narrative sentence are out-of-universe in mentioning a technical detail then a thematic detail. Maybe a way to address this is to write the "final shot" sentence to be pseudo-thematic in how the father accompanied his son this time?

Hope you don't mind this section-by-section review! I'm around Wikipedia these days only sporadically. I will go through the "Background" section later today. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed the concerns and figured some of this stuff is already covered in the Cast section and simply removed unneeded information. Hope that works. Also, you should check the last sentence of the Plot section, see if it needs to be rewritten. I tried to write it from James' POV. Wildroot (talk) 06:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Background suggestions

This sentence is unclear: "Johnny Depp and Brad Pitt were under serious consideration for the lead role,^[6] while both actors were also attached to the part.^[7]" Does "attached" mean that they were interested in it? Or does it mean that they were contracted? The latter would mean there is some redundancy to fix.

Yes, "attached" means they were both interested in the role. I'll admit that statement is kinda written weird. Wildroot (talk) 04:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"However, McAnuff..." Is there a way to write it without resorting to "However"? Like a clearer explanation as to why?

Fixed. Wildroot (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Dorff was considered. Was this before or after the casting call? Maybe he could be paired with Ethan Hawke as two strong candidates when Rydell was attached to the film.

This was before. Wildroot (talk) 04:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Release suggestions

Can more reviews be found for this film? There are print reviews from the Orlando Sentinel, the Detroit Free Press, and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Let me know if you need help viewing them.

I'm sorry, I don't think I can find any reviews. I need help on this one. TV movies are harder to research. Wildroot (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the article an overall copy-editing, so I hope you can address my concerns about various sentences above and about additional reviews. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article is looking great now! Let me see if I can't grab a couple of print reviews and display some relevant passages here so the critical reception can be slightly expanded. After that, I'll pass it as a Good Article! —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I decided that the presence of additional reviews is not a big deal; what exists suffices for the Good Article status. If you still have an interest in adding other reviews anyway, let me know, and I can incorporate them. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]