Talk:Lions for Lambs/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
There are a number of problems with this article, and I think a lot of it has to do with the lack of a primary contributor to shape things up. I did not think that the article could address the problems quickly, so I have failed it. Below are some reasons why:
- The prose leaves a lot to be desired. The writing is a little too casual, and there are some typos.
- The "Production" section could be expanded. Reaction to the film's title should be placed in a "Release" section or a similar section.
- "Promotion" should not be under "Production", and furthermore, there is a lot of focus on this private screening for Scientologists which I think is unnecessary. In addition, the coverage includes unnamed sources, and I do not think that such citations are very valid.
- "Critical reception" has some good reviews, but there seems to be a lot of quoting of the reviews' article titles or subtitles. I think we should focus on what critics had to say about the film as substantially as possible, rather than identifying the headlines that were written to be attention-grabbing.
- "Box office results" could be cleaned up in terms of prose and flow, and I think that there is far too much citing of whether or not the film was a box office bomb. Perhaps this was a topic of discussion at the time of its release, but in retrospect, I don't think this is disputable any more and should use a more comprehensive citation.
- I think that the article could explore more about United Artists's expectations for Lions for Lambs and how the release impacted the studio.
- It seems like with this film being relevant to current affairs, there should be some headlines relating the film to today's events.
Please let me know if you have any questions about my analysis. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)