Talk:Roar (film)

Plot

The plot is incorrect and leads the reader to a totally wrong understanding of the movie subject and goals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.40.114.215 (talk) 05:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Roar (1981 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GamerPro64 (talk · contribs) 04:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Going to make a claim to review this now and then start the review later. GamerPro64 04:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Starting off the review, looking through the images used, File:Roar on set.jpg seems to have incomplete rationales. Needs to be filled in. GamerPro64 04:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Replaced with new rationale which has been filled in. NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 19:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Just noticed I missed File:Roar original soundtrack.jpg so my same issue applies to this image too. GamerPro64 03:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 20:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Plot

• So for the entire plot section, checking the word count for the article, it registered exactly 700 words for the section, which is within the standards. But reading it, I believe the section can be parsed down a couple of words. Might need a once over by a copy editor. GamerPro64 00:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. I didn't request for a copy editor, only because you apparently aren't supposed to for an article that's already been submitted as a GAN. I did, however, shorten it significantly by 98 words. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 04:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

This took longer than expected. I am promoting this article to Good Article status. I think with a complete copyedit of the article it could stand a chance as a Featured Article. If anyone disagrees with this decision, they can take the article up for Good Article Reassessment. GamerPro64 02:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Copy edit

Hi, NowIsntItTime,
At your request, I started a first parse of copy editing at 15:25 until now.

• I worked on the lead, Plot and Cast sections, mainly rewording things here and there, and adding the US English template ({{Use American English}}), because of 'tire' (UK) vs. 'tyre' (US), as would be required in an article about a US film.
• Since the word count was mentioned in an earlier exchange here, the Plot section is now 598 words, FYI.
• In the Cast section, I aimed to emphasise the difference between some of the characters and their respective actors, since the young actors had the same first name as their character and the same surname as their actor father! I differentiated 'John' the character from 'John Marshall' the actor and also emphasised his father 'Noel Marshall', even though MOS:SAMESURNAME restricts this use of full names to people with the same surname but unrelated by birth or marriage. I just thought it would make it clearer for the readers, but it is possible that another editor would take a different view.
  

I am taking a break from it now, and have commented out the 'In use' & 'Under construction' templates until tomorrow morning, when I will have another long session on the article. I hope this helps.
With kind regards for now; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 18:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Perfection! Everything looks great so far, and I really appreciate the detail and care you've taken with this job.

Looking forward to your next edits, Patrick! -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 18:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, NowIsntItTime,
Afternoon report:
Thank you for your kind words, above. Just a quick update to confirm I've completed Development and Pre-production this afternoon, and will do a little more tonight. I'll keep you posted as I go along. It's slow work, but we'll get there eventually...
With kind regards for now; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 17:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Evening report:
I've now completed the sections on Filming and Injuries and set damages. There are two items that require your attention:

1. In Filming, the (now) final paragraph states that "Filming took five years to complete..." and provides an end date of "October 16, 1979", whereas the first paragraph states that "Principal photography began on October 1, 1976...". However, the time elapsed between these two dates is no more than three years, two weeks. You might consider reviewing the sources, to see if the "five years" might have included other activities that are not mentioned in the current prose, which you might perhaps need to expand or rephrase? Thank you.
2. At the end of Injuries and set damages, the prose says: "As a result of the flooding, the production and property took an entire year to recover. Filming was delayed for eight weeks. The set took eight months to be rebuilt ..." These three sentences don't seem to fit together: how was filming delayed by only eight weeks if the set took eight months to rebuild and the production and property took an entire year to recover? Please could you consult the sources again, and see if this part of the prose might need further clarification? Thank you.
   

The rest of the changes were essentially of rewording, or the application of MOS guidelines which I have documented in the edit summaries, as usual. I hope this is what you wanted; if you feel I need to do anything differently, then please let me know and I'll do my best. Thank you also for bearing with my slowness, but I think this work deserves to be done without rushing it. I'll do more tomorrow morning; this morning having been hijacked by activities in real life.
With kind regards, NowIsntItTime; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 20:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey Patrick.

First off, just wanted to thank you for your edits today...Secondly, in regards to the last paragraph in the filming section, I remembered that when I was typing that particular information out I made sure to add "with the exception of pick-up shots" after the mentioned date of October 16, 1979. This is the date Hedren lists in her book as when filming was complete, but they went to Kenya to record more footage to be included in the beginning of the film. This is indeed a bit confusing and before I remembered how I edited the page I thought I made a mistake, however, I tried to reword it so please let me know if this sentence clears up any confusion before you continue with your edits tomorrow: "Filming took five years to complete; though it ended on October 16, 1979, pick-up shots in Kenya were filmed during the editing stage."

I'll try to check the sources of, or try to make sense of, the Injuries and set damages section sentence tomorrow. But the stuff you're tending to needs it, so taking your time is absolutely necessary. Keep up the good work! -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 04:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

So what is happening is that the InterestingAmerica.com source says production was halted for a year after the flood in 1978, which is some more information than the VICE source that briefly bundles up the floods, illnesses, and destroyed equipment that "caused an eight-week delay before filming restarted." I think I'm obligated to leave that tidbit out then, as I imagine the VICE source was probably more of a summary of the events, while the InterestingAmerica.com one is much longer. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 17:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, NowIsntItTime,

That's excellent; thank you for both updates:

1. For the duration of filming, your clarification of the fact that the end date was sourced by Hedren enabled me to attribute that date to her in the prose, which (I dare say) makes it immediately clearer, especially since you also clarified the additional pick-up shooting in Kenya. If you're happy with the latest update I applied there, this morning, then I'm certainly happy with it, and would thank you for your input and clarification.
2. For the "eight-week delay before filming restarted" bit, it's a pity that the sources don't seem to agree with each other, as it's quite possible that the duration of that specific delay must have been based on some aspect of the whole project, but the sources have not given us enough facts to account for that strangely precise "eight-week delay before filming restarted". But if you're happy to leave that out, at least for now, then I would support your decision, since the latest change you've applied today certainly resolves the earlier confusion.

Please forgive me for not doing much today; I have been helping another editor this afternoon, but will be able to complete that this evening. My intent is to resume working on our project tomorrow; thank you for understanding, and for your kind words above. Please know that I am certainly enjoying working on your article.

With kind regards for now; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 18:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Pdebee: I'm glad that cleared things up! Please let me know if there are any more problems I need to address. I'm glad that you enjoy working on it; it certainly is fascinating...Looking forward to your next edits. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 18:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The final stretch:
Hi, NowIsntItTime,
I've now completed the remaining sections, from Music to the end. The only sentence I'd ask you to consider rewriting is in Legacy, near the end of the second paragraph:

She also said everyone involved had put their lives at risk to make the film as most of the damage was done as a result of "defying the odds" (though some of the people involved later went on to have successful careers in the film industry, including de Bont and Griffith).

Reason for asking: I am unclear about what is meant by: "as most of the damage was done ...". May I therefore suggest that you consider splitting the sentence into two and without parentheses? The object is to separate the two ideas: "lives put at risk for the film"²⁶⁰ and "some involved nonetheless enjoyed successful careers"^285-286, after consulting the book again. Then, I can look at the result once more, if you deem it necessary.
Although I have been rigorous in reviewing every sentence, please note that I have not verified the prose for conformity to the sources, nor have I scrutinised the citation style you used, although it certainly looks very good at first glance. In case you wanted to see another example of citation style, please consider looking at the excellent Australasian Antarctic Expedition, which is itself currently a featured article candidate.
Anyway, while I was reviewing your article I could see that you put in a great deal of effort and, as a result, the article gives a very useful overview of this film. So, good luck; I wish you well with it. As I've mentioned before, I thoroughly enjoyed working on your article and learnt a lot from reading it. Thanks once again for inviting me to participate, and please keep well.
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 16:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey Patrick, thanks for your final copyedit.

I think what I tried to say was that despite the injuries, everyone involved had a profitable career/job one way or the other while working with the animals on-set. I've re-phrased it to be more clear, and make a much better flow: She also said that the injuries inflicted on the crewmembers and cast were the result of putting their lives at risk to make the film. Hedren, however, noted a positive outcome for those who worked on Roar: many of the people involved went on to have successful careers and jobs in the film industry, such as de Bont and Griffith. Please tell me if this sounds much better, personally I think it's a big improvement than before.

For the citations, I understand the information needs to align with the sources, so I tried my best to do that. You have at least helped me with information in the article though, so thank you. The citation use was discussed with a FA mentor, who helped me look over them already and what format needed to be used. I'm reasonably confident, after looking at recent featured articles, that the format should be fine (unless a FA reviewer wants something changed). I looked at the article you provided, but I noticed there probably has to be a different format style between the many books written about an expedition and fewer than five books, one of them somewhat rare to find, about a film mostly unknown to mainstream audiences. I found that out because I had the book references separated from the websites, but my FA mentor suggested I merge them because they were so few.

Thank you so much! I learned a lot while working on this article as well...I enjoyed working with you and I do hope to see/work with you on other projects. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 18:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi again, NowIsntItTime,

Well done on your excellent rewrite of that sentence into two updated ones; I agree with you fully that it is now clear and reads much better. For the citations, I wanted to make sure you knew what I hadn't done (), and I am confident that you will have been methodical in aligning your prose with the sources. As for the citation style, you are entirely correct: what you have done is perfectly appropriate for the collection of sources at your disposal; had there been many more books, then the Harvard style with {{sfn}} would have been the right way to go but not in this case. So, as I said earlier, your references look very good and I am glad that you had discussed this earlier with your FA mentor.

Since we're now done (after I sneaked in a few more edits...), thank you once again for your kind words; it's been fun and I'd be happy to work with you again, whenever you think I might be able to assist. Until then, good luck, very best wishes, and please keep well.

With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 19:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi again, NowIsntItTime,
I hope nobody will mind that I applied a few more changes this morning, after you nominated it at FAC yesterday. Having gone through it sentence by sentence during copy editing, I wanted to re-read it once more from beginning to end and check it for general flow. I found a few more things to improve, but I’ll stay away now; promise! Thanks again, and very best wishes.
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 11:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Potential close connection to the movie has edited the page

Hello,

So, a user has edited this page to remove content while claiming to be Tembo the elephant's trainer, instead of Pat Barbeau. So what needs to be done is to determine whether this is a random claim, or the real deal. I need some fellow contributors to chime into this discussion, because not only does this new story need verification on this IP address's part, but this may also determine whether the page needs a tag indicating that the contributor has a close connection with its subject. NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 02:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted it and removed Pat's name, because it's really not necessary when the rest of the article doesn't have anything else about her. Eh, they may or may not be the person they say they are. I mean it's been over 40 years since the event occured, and this article has been on Wikipedia since 2006. Why remove it now? Mike Allen 04:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@MikeAllen: I get what you're saying on the time that has passed, and why would someone come to edit the page now. This may be a stretch on my part, but the person may be of the older generation who were never introduced to the idea of browsing the Wikipedia article for the film they worked on, therefore the random IP address. They might have found mention of another trainers name rather than their own when reading the production section, and not thinking to bring it up in the talk page or give evidence on a site they're not familiar with, simply edited the page thinking it would clear things up right away, which it became quite the opposite. The issue about mention of the trainer is resolved, but this person trying to claim it was them that trained the elephant(s) for Roar still leaves the issue whether we need a close connection tag. It's been a while on Wikipedia so I'm not familiar whether it affects a Good Article's standing. If you have information or know anyone with information about that, it is vital. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 19:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)