Talk:Lone Survivor/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Onel5969 (talk · contribs) 03:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Overall, one of the 6 criteria for a GA status is that it have strong illustrations, which this article does not. Now, that could be due to no pics available which aren't copyrighted, if so, then okay. Strong lead section. Since the Oscars have passed, I would update the results of the film's two nominations.
The first two sentences of the plot are very awkward and need to be reworked. The paragraph regarding the helicopters is a bit confusing. 1 helicopter, 2? How many men were on board the helicopter that got shot down? Were they also SEALs? Or were the SEALs in a different helicopter. In the next to last paragraph, there is a little bit of confusion here as well. How does Gulag intervene? By force, subterfuge? And when you say the Taliban are led away, do you mean captured and led away? Or chased away?
The cast list. The four main members are done extremely well. I'm not a fan of that format, but it works here. The first paragraph after the 4 cast members, however should be moved to the Production section. Other than that, very solid section.
The first line in the Development section is very awkward. "Berg's producing partner of their production company Film 44" is a bit redundant and awkward. The last sentence of the second paragraph is a bit redundant as well.
The Writing and Filming sections were very well done. I especially liked the way the very technical language of the cinematography section is handled I a way making it interesting to a non-film person. The Post Production is also well done.
The first sentence in Historical accuracy is incredibly awkward.
In the Strategy section, why did he choose to preview it to NFL players (that's a really strange thing, and I think it needs to be explained).
The critical section is very well balanced. I've been pretty picky, overall I think the quality is very good. If the few issues I mentioned are addressed, I would have no issue supporting this for GA.Onel5969 (talk) 03:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Thank you for reviewing the Lone Survivor article, Onel5969. I have made some changes to the article, based on your review of the article.SuperSonic2000 (talk) 06:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've made edits to the plot summary, as per your requests.
The opening sentence in Historical accuracy has been rewritten: "While based on true events, a number of historical inaccuracies in the film have been noted."
I've made various edits in the Development section.
I do agree that the strategy to screen the film to football teams was a strange idea. I've edited the opening paragraphs to provide further explanation: "Berg first screened Lone Survivor to a number of professional American football teams to generate a strong word-of-mouth for the film. He expressed that the screenings were not a marketing ploy, explaining, 'It's as much just a cool thing to do.'"SuperSonic2000 (talk) 06:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support. Okay. Still think you need to update the Oscar nomination info, since Gravity won both those Oscars. Perhaps not in the lead section, but at someplace in the article. I know when you get down to the table, it becomes apparent that the film didn't win, but since you mention it, you should also mention the results.

The opening of the plot reads much better now. Just a picky suggestion, but in the listing of the four men, you might use a colon after "are", and then semi-colons (or the commas would still work) between the four men. It's just that as you begin the list, you start off with hyphenated "on-ground", which creates some awkwardness. The rest of the plot reads much better, and is less confusing.
The clean-up of the cast list works.
Historical accuracy now works.
Development opening works better. (although I think you can still tweak it a bit)
The football player thing is now handled much better. I think my wanting to understand it better is not due to your handling of the situation as much as Berg not really having a good reason for having done it.
Overall, very good job.Onel5969 (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969, I have made various edits to the article to address the abovementioned issues.

I've expanded on production details in the Development section.
In "Accolades", I have mentioned that the film was nominated for two Oscars, but lost to Gravity
For "Plot", I've rewritten the listing of the four men.

SuperSonic2000 (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done.Onel5969 (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I take issue with the movement of the non-central cast to the "production" section. I think that the cast section should reflect something like The Avengers' cast list, in that central characters have expanded information and minor characters are listed underneath. Many readers wouldn't think to check the production section for the rest of the cast list. Corvoe (speak to me) 16:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've divided the casting details in various sections of the article. FrankRizzo (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why hasn't this been passed/failed/put on hold yet? Pinging original reviewer Onel5969. Corvoe (speak to me) 00:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Corvoe ... because I was unaware I was allowed to move it to GA status (still a bit new to this). Have rectified it. Congratulations, good work!Onel5969 (talk) 03:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! FrankRizzo (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]