Talk:Kill the Irishman

"Bulletproof Gangster"

I just watched a torrented version of this, and although the filename was 'Kill the Irishman', the title on the fim's opening and closing credits was 'Bulletproof Gangster'.
Checked IMDB. Here's link http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1416801/releaseinfo#akas
So added alternative title to main article's info box.

Fun tidbit... Val Kilmer attended the 5/27/2009 Red Wings vs. Blackhawks game wearing a Red Wings hat. Saw him in the front row on the CBC broadcast. (I'm only on this page because I saw him and wanted to find out what he was doing in town.) Seadragon (talk) 00:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

MovieSet has collection of behind the scenes interviews from the Irishman set plus an archive of information from the film and still photos at: http://www.movieset.com/theirishman/ - This info can be used to update this entry using original quotes from interviews with Walken, Kilmer, Stevenson plus technical crew. --Cinema-enthusiast (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kill the Irishman/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sock (talk · contribs) 19:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to quickfail this article. The plot section has a completely valid cleanup tag, in that it's sitting at over 1300 words. The preferred range, per WP:FILMPLOT, is 400-700. There are extensive bare URLs in the references; very few are actually filled out. No box office section, which is necessary for theatrically released films. The infobox should not contain DVD sales, just theatrical gross. Lots of improper grammar and phrasing throughout, with some puffery thrown in the mix.

The content is more in-depth than I would've expected, and in terms of coverage, you're golden. However, this is unfortunately far away from meeting the necessary "well-written" criteria, and is in need of a lot of copy-editing and cleanup before it's ready for GA. I'd highly suggest going through, cutting the plot section in half, then taking this to the Guild of Copy Editors to clean it up. Also, try to trim some of the extraneous trivia (the "Development" section in particular is full of info that could be said in a few sentences).

Sorry, Metalfire. Best of luck for your next nomination! I'd be happy to review it again if/when you do the necessary editing. Sock (tock talk) 19:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kill the Irishman/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 02:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Checklist

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. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   See other comment 3 below

   C. No original research:

   See other comments 1 and 4 below

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

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:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

Criterion 1

1. Kill the Irishman was in development hell for over a decade The term "development hell" is jargon and should be taken out of the lead as it isn't easily understood. It also isn't the term used in the source cited so it may be original research

2. Cleanup tag at the top is definitely still valid. The lead should cover the reception of the film as well. See WP:LEAD.

   This still needs to be addressed.

   Still needs fixing

   Has been fixed Wugapodes (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

3. Danny refuses and Licavoli places a contract on Danny’s life. What does "place a contract" mean? Not everyone will be familiar with that term

4. Reid said this galvanized him into action, and it was a common occurrence in Hollywood. This is awkwardly worded in context. You may want to think about rewriting it.

5. Tommy Reid did extensive research "extensive" here feels a bit out of line with WP:PEACOCK

6. Tommy Reid began to accept the possibility that his movie would never be made, This clause is very strange. It may be worth rewriting that whole section as well.

7. "bankable" director What does that mean? You should explain that in the article.

8. incidences is this supposed to be incidents or coincidences?

9. A number of incidences "a number of" lacks precision and should be reworded to reflect the number of examples you have.

10. This has been noted by many critics This term lacks precision. Let readers come to their own conclusions as to whether the number of critics constitute "many". See WP:WEASEL.

11. Reid said the FBI, they wanted to make sure the mafia was not being glorified. Is this a quotation? Either way it's awkwardly worded and should be reworded.

12. The background research section also feels poorly worded as half of it is simply "she said" sentences.

13. Many of the dates given... This paragraph should be above the section heading on Alex Birns as it has nothing to do with Alex Birns' death.

14. Home Video should be a subsection of Release and Reception.

Other Comments

1. In reality, although many rumors surround Art Sneperger’s death, it remains unsolved. Some investigators speculated that radio interference caused the bomb to detonate early; others speculated that Greene killed him after learning he was going to become an informant. Source cited does not back this up. See WP:OR.

   This sentence is still in the article without a source.

   This sentence is now sourced, but by a mafia wiki (that doesn't cite any sources) which is an unreliable source per the reliable sources policy: Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media [like]...open wikis...are largely not acceptable.

   Sources are good, but the inside St. Louis source doesn't say Greene was never charged, just that he was never proven to have done it. I changed the wording from "never charged with Sneperger's murder" to "never proved to have killed Sneperger." If you find a source that says Greene wasn't charged, you can change it back, but I'll list it as a GA with the wording change I made. Wugapodes (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

2. Keith (Jones) is killed After the first time, you don't need to put the actor's names in parentheses.

   Oh no! I think you misunderstood me here. The general style I tend to see is "...Character (Actor)..." at first mention, and every mention afterwards is just "...character...". So what I meant here is that you were following the style of only putting the actor's name at first mention, but then at this line, you had the actor's name again. It's fine as it is right now, you don't have to go in and change them all.

3. Stevenson stated that “it looks like a $30 million movie”, “which is a testament to everybody involved”. I'm not sure why a primary source is being used here, particularly since they would have a bias when talking about how the film looks. See WP:WPNOTRS. An ellipsis should be used instead of a comma, but that part is optional.

4. Although the film was generally well received, its box office performance was disappointing. The source doesn't say it's disappointing. I'm assuming this is original research or non-neutral point of view and should probably be removed unless a source describes it as disappointing.

   This was revised to state Although the film was generally well received, it was unsuccessful at the box office. The source however still doesn't say either. While it may seem to you and I that the box office result was unsuccessful, if a verifiable and reliable source doesn't say that, it is original research and can't be included.

   While I feel bad for harping on this one sentence, I think it's important to improve the article. While removing the "unsuccessful" part, it still contains the "generally well received" which is also kind of weasel-y. I think if it were properly attributed, like with the rotten tomatoes score or metacritic rating, it would be more acceptable (I think metacritic described it as "mixed to average"). But the source cited doesn't justify the "generally well received" description.

   Good Wugapodes (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

(Optional) The paragraph starting with Licavoli is made the Don of Cleveland; isn't very compellingly written. It is very subject-verb, subject-verb. I recommend rewriting it so it's a little more compelling.

This might have been changed a while ago and I just overlooked it, but it's good now Wugapodes (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

(Optional) While the GA Criteria don't require it, the plot section doesn't cite any sources, which is important as it may be original research.

Unfortunately, the revision to this needs work and is actually now a requirement. The problem is that the sources you cited are about the factual life of Danny Greene, not the plot of the movie. So the sources tell me that these are things that factually happened in the life of Danny Greene but not necessarily that they are factual things that happened in the movie. If this were an article about Danny Greene, the sources would be fine, but since this is an article about a movie about Greene, the sources need to be about the movie.

This seems to have been corrected though I'll need to look through the sources a bit more.

5. ^{Added 19:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)} I was giving the article a once over before passing it and noticed that the still of the car exploding did not have a fair use rationale for "respect for commercial opportunities". It was an easy enough fix, so I added one, but in the future you need to remember that non-free content need to fulfill all the criteria for use and you need to articulate that on the file page. Wugapodes (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Results

On Hold for 10 days and may be extended depending on progress. To be quite honest, I feel like this article needs a good amount of work before I'm willing to promote it to GA status, which is partly why I gave 10 days instead of the usual 7. I think it can be done if the work is put into it. A lot of attention needs to be paid to WP:OR to make sure that sources actually support the information cited as there were a number of instances where statements weren't backed up by the sources provided. Feel free to ask me any questions or for clarification. Happy Editing! Wugapodes (talk) 04:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Results after First Revision

Still On Hold A lot of progress has been made, and most of the criterion 1 concerns have been fixed. The lead still needs to be rewritten to cover the reception of the film and other important aspects of the article. Most importantly, however, is the sourcing. The two examples I mentioned above are still in the article without a change of source, and the sources that were added to the Plot section are about Greene's biography not the plot of the movie. Wugapodes (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Results after Second Revision

Still On Hold The lead still needs to be rewritten to include a summary of the release and reception of the film so that the cleanup tag can be removed. The two other aspects still have some problems that I covered.

Results after Third Revision

Pass I think this version passes the GA bar, however I think the next thing to do in improving the article is similar to what the last reviewer said, you should take it to the Guild of Copy Editors to really tighten up the prose as the suggestions I made were the bare minimum to make it clear and concise per the GA criteria, and there is a lot more that can be done. A general note is to be wary of unreliable sources, puffery, and original research which came up a lot in this review. With movies and mobsters, all of those can easily become big problems and can cause it to be delisted. Now don't take this as a reason to stop improving the article, there's still a lot of room to work. The article's come very far, so keep up the hard work! Wugapodes (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

GA status clarification

Hi Wugapodes, you said that the article has passed the GA criteria (but can still do with improving), but I have just received a message on my talk page saying the article has failed to meet the criteria. Is this a mistake? or have you reverted your decision?. Thanks. Metal121, April 03, 2015. 20:25 (GMT).

That is weird...I think it might have something to do with the previous review. I'll ask around to see how to fix that. Wugapodes (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@Metal121: I asked Dom497 and he thinks it is because of the {{GA}} and {{FailedGA}} both on the page, and that {{Article history}} should have been used. I've fixed the problem. Wugapodes (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Copyedit

Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Minor revisions to plot

Hi there, just making a note (since this is a good article) that I made some minor revisions to plot. It was pretty good so I tried not to change it too much, but addressed the following primarily:

• Some copyedit nits (missing word; characters alternately called by first and last names instead of one name consistently through the summary; etc.
• Minor corrections - for example, the cross Mrs. O'Keefe gives Danny isn't a crucifix, it's a Celtic cross - there is a difference especially if you're Irish Catholic
• Some of the legal terms used were a little wonky - for example, "Federal police" is never used, it would be "Federal agents"; Manditski isn't just a cop, he's a detective which denotes a high ranking cop
• A couple of the plot points needed expansion - the plot is fairly complicated as is often the case with Mafia movies especially where, as here, they try to stay close to real life events

Hope this is helpful, I am glad this is a GA since I think the movie got unfairly buried. Everybody I know in Cleveland liked it - many of us who grew up in the 70s remember the real life events very well :) TheBlinkster (talk) 05:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I put the plot summary on a diet because I noticed a previous GA reviewer complained about its being over 700 words. My personal opinion is that the length of a plot summary is a debatable topic because depending on what's going on in the movie, they can be less than 400 or more than 700, and WP:FILMPLOT notes that if a plot is complicated it can go longer. However, I am also aware that some editors just hate long plot summaries period, and it's generally easier to just cut your writing than argue with somebody about why it shouldn't be cut. Therefore, my revised version is now on the page measured with my cut-and-paste word counter to be 696 words, so you should be OK with respect to any length limits. Best regards, TheBlinkster (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I edited my comment above because I see the article already passed GA. My bad, I misread the first time. Good job getting this to GA. TheBlinkster (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kill the Irishman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i07c80a70350aca72ada4bdb1c08c9612

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kill the Irishman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120325034141/http://www.slickdevilmoviehouse.com/Interviews/Jonathan%20Hensleigh/index.htm to http://www.slickdevilmoviehouse.com/Interviews/Jonathan%20Hensleigh/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141213161414/http://www.ray-stevenson.com/component/content/article/46-irishman/112-kill-the-irishman-ny-premiere to http://www.ray-stevenson.com/component/content/article/46-irishman/112-kill-the-irishman-ny-premiere

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Kill the Irishman

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: I have TNTed the inaccuracies section; as this seemed to be the only outstanding complaint after Wugapodes' response, I am closing as keep. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

GA from 2015. Uses many unreliable sources and some parts aren’t formatted correctly. There are also citations in the lede that should be moved into the body. Spinixster (chat!) 00:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• I cannot comment on the specifics of this article, but I want to note that citations in the lead are explicitly not prohibited by policy, and their use must be determined on a case-by-case basis; in general I would defer to the wishes of the major contributor, other things being equal. Citations in the lead are most certainly not a reason to delist a GA. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Vanamonde93 Yes, per WP:CITELEAD, redundant citations in the lede can be put in the body instead. Many of the citations are already cited in the body, so there’s no point in citing it in the lede, too. Of course, this does not do anything to the GA, just something I’d like to point out. Spinixster (chat!) 02:04, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

  They can be, but aren't required to be; you're expressing personal preference (which you're entitled to) and framing it as policy (which it isn't). CITEKILL can be a problem, but that's not lead-specific. The rest of the citation concern isn't a GAR issue. The other issues you've raised are, so I suggest focusing on those. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Vanamonde93 As I said, I just pointed it out. I didn't say it was necessarily an issue. Spinixster (chat!) 01:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

• I was the person who originally reviewed (and failed) this article in 2015. I don't mean this as a disparaging remark to the primary editor, as it's clear a lot of work has gone into fleshing this out, but I genuinely think it's in worse shape now than it was then. Despite the welcome addition of more sources and information along with a trimmed down plot section, I agree with Spinixster that many of those sources are unreliable. The article also has numerous grammar issues, some questionable structuring decisions, and redundancies (particularly in the "Historical Inaccuracies" section). This would need a significant overhaul to even keep C-class status, so unless someone is willing to do that, I'm very much in agreement that this should have its GA status removed. Sock (tock talk) 04:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
• The issues being raised so far are incredibly vague and unhelpful. The goal of a reassessment is to improve an article, and it's difficult to do that if problems aren't laid out with specificity and reference to the GA criteria. some parts aren’t formatted correctly Which parts? What GA criteria specifically are at issue? Looking at the article nothing seems broken and it seems to comply with criterion 1b. Uses many unreliable sources Which sources are unreliable? Reliability is related to the claim being supported, so what claims are the sources supporting? Since nothing specific has been pointed out, I took time and went through every citation in the article:
  1. The most used citation is cited to a 50-year-old newspaper of record.
  2. There's a reference to Box Office Mojo which is routinely used by film articles and from a search of RSN doesn't seem to be considered unreliable.
  3. The name of the director is cited to an interview with that director saying that he is the director.
  4. A citation to the book the movie is adapted from
  5. Variety Magazine
  6. The Hollywood Reporter
  7. Unreliable, but it doesn't seem necessary to support the sentence given the other citation for the sentence. It claims to be a government document so the original or more reliable source can likely be found
  8. An archival copy of a newspaper
  9. Unreliable, only used in the lead to support who attended the premiere
  10. Not sure if this is a fan site or the actors official site? I lean towards fan site so probably unreliable. Only used in lead to support who attended the premiere
  11. Seems like a normal media site
  12. Rotten Tomatoes
  13. Seems like a normal media site
  14. AVClub
  15. LA Times
  16. The Numbers
  17. An interview cited to support the interviewee's statements
  18. An interview with the producer, though the claims it supports could be attributed in text to the interviewee to make that clearer
  19. An interview with a cast member, I didn't go through all the citations but seems to mostly be about how the film was made
  20. An interview with a cast member
  21. An industry magazine for screenwriters
  22. The Hollywood Reporter
  23. The Hollywood Reporter
  24. A local newspaper in Michigan talking about how the Michigan government subsidized its production
  25. Metacritic
  26. SF Chronicle
  27. Huffington Post (non-politics)
  28. A blog which seems to be from a non-notable critic. It supports a pull quote that could probably just be removed in favor of the others around it
  29. LA Weekly
  30. Entertainment Weekly
  31. The Plain Dealer, a regional newspaper for Ohio
  32. The Hollywood Reporter
  33. The Numbers
  34. A citation to "tunes.zone" which is dead and from the name alone I'm suspicious of. It is a source for the soundtrack which is also just available in the movie's credits
  35. A blog sourcing a claimed inaccuracy that could probably just be removed or a better source found
  36. A blog, same reasoning as above
  37. The book the film was adapted from
  38. The Plain Dealer
  39. An interview with the director

So of the 39 sources, at most 7 are to plainly unreliable sources (7, 9, 10, 28, 34, 35, 36), and they don't support any particularly important information which can't simply be cut. Having gone through every source and looked at most of the claims they are supporting, I'm not seeing a problem that needs a GAR to resolve. Am I missing something? Just cut those sentences, maybe find a better source and it should comply with 2b after only like a few minutes of work. numerous grammar issues Where? What kind? I just skimmed it and it seemed fine. some questionable structuring decisions What structuring decisions? What makes them questionable? The article seems to comply with criterion 1b's layout requirement, so I need more specificity to understand what makes this a GAR issue. redundancies (particularly in the "Historical Inaccuracies" section) this is specific and actionable. These redundancies would probably be fixed by simply cutting the claims cited to unreliable sources or even just cutting that whole section. — Wug·a·po·des 00:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I was wrong, but @Sock Do you have anything to say about this? Spinixster (chat!) 01:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I think Wugapodes' points about the article and criticisms of my response are entirely valid. I was wrong to give my two cents on a GAR without familiarizing myself with the process more thoroughly or providing exclusively actionable feedback, and I sincerely appreciate the callout. I'll be taking a closer look at this article with their points in mind in the next little bit and provide something a bit more productive to the discussion. Sock (tock talk) 12:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.