Talk:Schindler's List/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 22:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note that one of the external links appears to be problematic according to the toolbox to the right.~~--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Y Fixed -- Diannaa (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Please be aware that IMDb.com is not considered a WP:RS for most content.~~--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC) Y Changed to Amazon[reply]

WP:LEAD

Seems like an FA-caliber lead for the most part.
~~If the $22 million is all U.S. dollars, I would add a current dollar conversion (US${{formatnum:{{Inflation}}}} in {{CURRENTYEAR}} dollars{{inflation-fn|US}})~~--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Y[reply]

Plot

It has been so long since I have seen the film, that I am unable to make constructive commentary on the plot. Should I ask for a 2nd opinion?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The main problem with the Plot section was condensing it down to a concise length. I watched the film twice and went over the plot section a few times during the course of prepping the article. Second opinion welcome; it's up to you. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Themes

Note that these themes are my opinions. Feel free to rebut them.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the theme some things are more important than making the most money possible should be included, if you can properly source it as a valid theme.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that Schindler was a friend to the jews and foe to the Nazis, even though he was a party member. Thus, the theme of keeping your friends close and enemies closer is also important. He plied the Nazis with all kinds of gifts.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- These are both great ideas but neither of them is covered in the available sources. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cinematography

In this section there are several technical terms buried in quotes. It would be great if you could present them as original prose with link or just break the rule and link terms that the average reader will need help with.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Y paraphrased. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Music

Score and soundtrack are generally different things. In this case, the page seems malplaced. I was expecting to find a different album than the score, but clicked through to find the score. The prose never actually mention the album, although there is a {{main}} template.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ? Sorry, I am not following you. What are you looking for as an edit to the article? The link to the soundtrack album is a {{see also}}, (not {{main}}). -- Diannaa (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Link the album in the prose. It is confusing to talk about the score and have a prominent link pointing to a soundtrack.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Y[reply]

Symbolism

~~This section seems underwikified. Some terms must have links. Shabbat is one. Maybe crematoria, Aryan, slave labor, cattle cars too.~~--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Y Shabbat is already linked in the Plot section, and other links were added. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Release

~~$96.1 million should be converted.~~--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Y[reply]
for some time is an unacceptable phrase for a movie of this importance.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Y Re-worded. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying "It long remained number one in box office receipts in Germany" is also no good. This is a very important film and we should be able to say when its record was broken.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry but that information is not available in the sources I have available. The point of including this was to show the film was popular in Germany, so I have said that instead. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Critical response

~~In this section, I think you need to summarize aggregates like Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes.~~--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Y done[reply]
- Both of these sites have two ratings. One from the critics and one from the general public. Could you please clarify the content that you have added. Also, it is common to clarify the robustness of the numbers like saying 93 from 23 Metacritics and 97 from 76 Rotten Tomatoe critics.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC) Y Fixed[reply]
~~fiction feature?~~--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Y re-worded. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~I don't understand the phrase " depicted unremarked"~~--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Y re-worded[reply]

Assessment by other film makers

If you are going to have an assessment by other filmmakers section in this article, at some point the article needs to discuss DGA and PGA Awards and or nominations. Maybe this section, but probably below in awards. I can not imagine that this film was not nominated. The reader may feel you are picking and choosing, so at some point we need to present the consensus.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Y[reply]

Accolades

~~This section is incomplete. I would discuss the DGA, PGA and WGA nominations if they existed as they should have. The modern WP reader might expect to see everything listed at IMDb.com to be on WP.~~--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Y Added DGA, PGA and WGA awards. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article summarized the film as it is recalled by historians in historical lists. It does not present contemporary critics. I would like to know how many contemporary critics selected it as the best film of the year. Surely, some notable critics did so. I imagine it is hard to research best of film lists for 1993, but it must be possible to find a few major ones. The fact that it is on All-time best of lists, does not eliminate the need to present some content regarding best of the year by critics, IMO. Feel free to convince me otherwise.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added ~~two~~ three critics that called it the best of 1993. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At some point you are going to need to put the current table in prose and the expand it and move it to a separate article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies

"The telecast was the first to receive a TV-M (now TV-MA) rating under the TV Parental Guidelines that had been established earlier that year". Do you mean movie? IIRC NYPD Blue was one of the primary reasons for the TV ratings and I can not imagine that it did not get a TV-MA rating.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The source says : "Containing graphic violence and nudity, "Schindler's List" is the first network broadcast to receive a TV-M rating, signaling mature audiences, since TV's adoption of a content ratings system in January." Here is a link. The rating was introduced on January 17 and the film was shown on TV on February 24. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know the length of the German break?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No. The source says there was a short news break framed with advertising but it doesn't give the total length of the break. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also

The current state of this section suggests that this article is only listed in one list article. I would include all the lists that are not in the accolades sections such as AFI lists. It must be on more than one.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added a few of the remaining other awards to the see-also section. I checked a selection of other film articles, including FAs Casablanca and Mulholland Drive, and they don't include extensive see-alsos. In my opinion linking to list articles doesn't add much value to the reader, so I am disinclined to add extensively to this. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those film critics circles might get us closer to having individual critics who selected it as the best film of the year. Although it won most of the major awards, if we can source film critic circle awards, we should.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am adding the Film Critics Circle Awards in Accolades, and added material for ~~two~~ three critics who named it the best film of 1993. Surely there were more but I can't find any other material regarding that, either in the books or online. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Click on the What links here tab. In the first 500 items you will see pages such as List of films considered the best, List of historical drama films, List of biographical films, List of drama films, List of black-and-white films produced since 1970, List of war films and TV specials, List of individuals and groups assisting Jews during the Holocaust, List of Universal Pictures films, List of racism-related films, List of banned films. Go through all the items and include the relevant lists in the see also section. Remove the Critics Awards from See also and put the relevant content in prose.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, but I disagree that this would make a good addition, and it's not listed in the Good Article criteria. Other movie articles don't have extensive see-also sections pointing to list articles (none of the featured articles I checked do this), and I don't see the value to the reader. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        My point is that the current see also includes an arbitrary list. There are many lists that could be included. If you are going to include one explain why you are not going to include the others.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I have trimmed the see-also, which now only contains a link to 1993 in film. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I have added Los Angeles Film Critics Association awards and National Society of Film Critics awards to the prose. We've now got five major awards in the tables and six minor awards in the prose. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        
        There's still 36 additional awards and nominations listed at IMDb. I haven't checked yet to see what if any sourcing is available for these awards yet as I don't think we need to add everything listed there. This information is readily available at IMDb, so I don't see any reason to duplicate it in our article. We've got a pretty comprehensive selection of awards listed, and looking at other GAs and FAs, I am seeing a similar level of awards coverage compared to this article. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        In order to make featured you will have to remove the table and create a separate article. Many GA reviewers would make you do it. You are lucky that I prefer the tables in the article to having them in separate articles.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I will not be nominating the article for FA anytime in the foreseeable future. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images

The main image has a proper FUR. Except for File:Schindlers list red dress.JPG, all other images are PD. File:Schindlers list red dress.JPG is one of the main themes of the movie and has a proper FUR.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CAPTIONs are fine.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checking Talk:Schindler's List/GA1

~~There continue to be several examples of WP:OVERLINKING of the same subject in multiple locations of the article.~~--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed some links. As links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead, some terms are still linked more than once. Please let me know of any specific ones you think should be removed, or any that should be re-added. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Some of the quotes throughout "Production" do not have citations.~~--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Y - Fixed -- Diannaa (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not troubled by the caliber of the sources.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an expert in regards to the caliber of the sources.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this nomination is going to take some work. However, I will put it On Hold for further reevaluation.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have addressed all the issues. If you could check everything over and let me know where we are at, that would be great. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great work. I am going to PASS this now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Tony, for reviewing and improving this important and highly viewed article. Best wishes, -- Diannaa (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.