Talk:Mr. Nobody (film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 16:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting a review of this article

Review discussion

This looks good overall. A few small items:

The second sentence under "visual effects" reads "having delivered 121 digital visual effects shots for Mr. Nobody." Similar for the last sentence ini that paragraph/section. Could you clarify what you mean by "digital visual effects shot" as an entity.North8000 (talk) 16:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The third sentence in the same section appears to have a "singular vs. plural" grammar error. I would have fixed it but did not know which way to go, not knowing the material behind it. North8000 (talk) 16:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A visual effects shot is the single framing produced for a film. It's the technical term used by visual effects companies. Fixed the grammar.--Earthh (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sufficiently resolved. Extra clarification for those of us without your film expertise would be even better, but this is sufficiently resolved. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the first sentence under "Theatrical run"

Could you clarify in the article what: "An earlier, longer, work-in-progress version of the film was rejected for competition by Cannes," means?

Could you clarify in the article what: "which offered that cut of Mr. Nobody a out-of-competition berth." means?

North8000 (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified Cannes Film Festival, I thought it was implied..--Earthh (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the area in question. I think that clarifying it with respect to these questions would do it. Was it just the earlier version hat was rejected, i.e. was a later version accepted? What does an "out of competition berth" mean? And was that "reduced place" just for the earlier version and, if so, what about the "final" version at Cannes?

The film was planned to premiere at the Cannes Film Festival in May 2009. That was an earlier version of the film, and the festival offered just a screening among the films out of competition, i.e. it was not nominated for the festival's highest prize, the Palme d'Or. The producers refused that and that version of the film was not shown at the 2009 Cannes Film Festival. The "final" version, finished some months later, premiered at the Venice Film Festival in September 2009.--Earthh (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have some concerns about what isn't covered here. For example, under theatrical run, it describes it's run in Belgium and France. Did it run elsewhere? And, if not, I would think that saying that it ran only in Belgium and France is the gorilla-in-the-living room missing info/summary. The same for it's overall gross receipts, and any discussion about it's commercial success or non-success. Also in the critical reception, about 95% of the material is reviews lauding the moving, and 5% was one softball critique. Ideally there would be a source that summarizes the critical reception, if available. If not, then a good representative cross section would be in order. Is what's in there representative? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was a similiar discussion some time ago. To date the worldwide gross of the film is not available. Box office performances of most of the countries in which the film was released are not available (Box Office Mojo is cited in the article but has very little data). The film run elsewhere ([1]), but since it is not available a worldwide gross, I described just the domestic box office (Belgium and France). The film was extremely successful in Belgium (and was one of the highest-grossing Belgian films of 2010 [2]) but had a disappointing revenue in France due to the mixed response from French critics. These little available informations are in the article. For the critical reception, the film has received high praise from film critics. During its premiere at the Venice Film Festival, it was one of the most acclaimed film screened at the festival. Rotten Tomatoes gives the film a score of 67% based on reviews from six critics, and reports a rating average of 7.9 out of 10. Most of the reviews used in the article are from major North American publications. What should I do?--Earthh (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the article follows reasonably-available sources and tries to summarize and give the right weight to what they say, then I think we're cool. If an article tended to leave things out and emphasize others all in a certain POV direction, then there would be an issue. I was mostly working to reassure myself that its not the latter; and not being knowledgeable in this field makes that slower going. I was approaching it both through some initial thoughts / questions here as well as planning a closer look. Just trying to do my "job" properly. :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly wrote the article and I can reassure you that it is neutral and represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, otherwise I would not have nominated it for the good articles. If you need more clarification I'm here :) Earthh (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm going to figure that we're good there. North8000 (talk) 14:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final GA criteria checklist

Well-written

Passes this criteria. North8000 (talk) 14:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Factually accurate and verifiable

Meets this criteria North8000 (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage

Meets this criteria based on available sources. Notably there is no discussion or summary of its degree of overall commercial success (or lack thereof) but it appears that this is due to the lack of available coverage in sources of that aspect. North8000 (talk) 14:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

Passes this criteria; See note under "Broad in its coverage." North8000 (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

Meets this criteria. Article is stable. North8000 (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by images

Meets this criteria. Has 5 images; the 2 non-free images have article-specific rationales. North8000 (talk) 16:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article passes Good Article. Congratulations on creating an excellent article. I will implement the details. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) --Earthh (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]