Talk:Keeper of the Flame (film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Soham (talk · contribs) 16:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article according to the GA criteria. – Soham (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Soham: Please do :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Is it an American film? Other than that with 3 paragraphs and no citation it's good! About "summarizing the most important points" of the article, I haven't read the entire article. I'll comment on that after I finish going through it.

Plot

592 words, good.

Cast

Can "billed" be wikilinked?

I don't think it needs to be, it's pointless IMO.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Script and casting

~~Is it written in British or American english. I am asking this because I found "realized" at the beginning of the sub-section.~~

"source material was political" — if a script is political in nature that script is not necessarily shelved, it may be done so when its "too" political when the political state of the country (in this case America I think) is kept in mind. I think this aspect should be discussed in order to justify the statement.

@Soham: I've added "political in nature", I don't think you need to elaborate, he clearly wasn't happy with a political theme.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last but not the least, Blo and Kailash, please accept my sincere apologies for stretching this review so long. Sorry mate. – Soham (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Soham, your apologies are accepted. Because it's an MGM film with the Infobox reading "United States" as the country, the film is clearly American. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kailash, mate I don't have a proper internet connection these days owing to shifting to a new place, so if you could please complete this review I would be extremely grateful. I ask you to do this 'cause Blo's article is suffering here, and I don't want that. Hope you'll understand. – Soham (talk) 07:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soham, Dr. Blofeld, and Kailash, I'd like to take over this review and complete it within the next few days. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments in the meantime. -- Caponer (talk) 11:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much appreciated!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. – Soham (talk) 07:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Final review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Dr. Blofeld, after completing several re-reads and re-reviews of this article, I find that it most definitely meets all the criteria for passage to Good Article status. Before this occurs, I did have a few comments and suggestions that I've shared below. Once these have been sufficiently addressed here, we can continue on with the process of approval for Good Article status. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime! This is truly a wonderful effort on your part, and I congratulate you on a job well done Dr. B! -- Caponer (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Suggest wiki-linking United States Office of War Information in the lead's third paragraph.

Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can more be said in the lead about why Bureau of Motion Pictures chief Lowell Mellett disapproved of the film? Is more known? The body of the text states that he found it was "heavy-handed" but I'm not quite sure what this means in this context.
Should it be included in the lead that once the film went into production at MGM, the book was published in 1942?

Good point, yes I've mentioned it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

The plot section follows Wikipedia's policy on primary sources, and is well-written. It meets all the guidelines set forth in Wikipedia:FILMPLOT.

Cast

Only Hepburn and Tracy have internal citations here. Is it possible for internal citations to be used for the remainder of the cast, or do they fall under Wikipedia's policy on primary sources for films?

Cast doesn't need to be sourced, I've removed for consistency.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Production

The phrase "might torpedo the picture" should be rewritten to sound more businesslike, in accordance with Wikipedia:COLLOQUIAL.

Reworded.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure to be consistent throughout the article with usage of Oxford commas.

Such as?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind--it looks like this has already been taken care of! -- Caponer (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there available information to explain why Pauline Lord's scenes were deleted from the picture?

I don't think so.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Release

Is there available information to explain why Mellett found the film "heavy-handed" and what this means? Did Mellett find the leftist undertones to be "heavy-handed"?

Neither Stewart nor Neve makes more than a passing reference to Mellett's dissatisfaction with the film.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use either US or United States consistently throughout the article.

Done I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

Like the other sections in this article, this one is well-written and I have no issues or questions regarding it.

Dr. Blofeld, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to review this article. This concludes my comments. Ping me when you are ready for me to re-review! -- Caponer (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review Caponer. Will answer shortly!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld, thank you so incredibly much for your expedient responses to the above comments and suggestions. I feel that this article is definitely ready for passage to Good Article status. As always, it's been great working with you throughout this process! -- Caponer (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. Thanks for taking the time to review it! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]