Talk:Stanley Kubrick/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 14:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Looking forward to reviewing this! I should complete this review by tomorrow at the latest. JAGUAR  14:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Trimmed readable prose from 111 to 94 kb. We could still probably lose 10-15 kb but that can be done during the PR.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion for cutting text is that when you are discussing the specific films as part of his directorial history, you are getting far too much into the detail of the films when these films pages should already have these details. There are details to bring forward here that specifically relate to Kubrick in his career, and commentary on him as a director, but I'm seeing a lot of very film-centric, little Kubrick-centric material in these areas. Even some of the free images in these areas are a bit out of place (like the ape suit from 2001), where better suited on the films. --MASEM (t) 20:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, to really understand Kubrick's life and career you really need resourceful information about his productions. He was the films, they go hand in hand. It makes the article much more interesting and balanced to read other than saying "In 1962 he directed xxx. He used the xx technique, which xxx said looked crap". In 1964... Where I agree to a limited extent is that in the coverage of some of his films they do seem more like balanced film overviews rather than purely from Kubrick's perspective, so that perhaps needs to be tweaked and readdressed in places. I think the coverage of his directing and techniques is adequate. For every one of his films there's decent info about him as a director, the background with his scriptwriters and agreements, research, directing techniques and relevant background information behind the productions which I think is a decent balance. The summaries of the plots or whatever are very basic. Only 2001 is longer, but that's necessary I think. Perhaps for some of the films like 2001 especially there ought to be a bit more technical directorial info and analysis of his techniques in favour of production info, but I didn't come across much material like that in my biographies of him which I haven't already covered. If I did I excluded it for a reason, because it would read too excessively if I ventured into real detail about it. Anyway none of this is that important at GA level, I'll see what the others have to say at the PR.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

If this article wasn't already pushing the size issue, I would totally agree that more would be interesting, but we are at size, so it becomes a matter of how to either trimming down or moving things to different articles. And since each film he did is highly praised and critically commented on to make interesting articles there, it should not be an issue to let the films speak for themselves. I'm not saying that all the film sections should be reduced to "In year A he produced Y, in year B he produced Z", but lets keep in mind that while he was a key visionary and the director on most of those films, a lot of the stuff that is in this article that is being praised about those films is not a direct result of his directing or creative choices. (Eg the ape suit). What definitely should be kept it commentary on how any of the films reflected on Kubrick as the person and director, but the details of production are weighting this down. --MASEM (t) 14:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: After this review you're welcome to offer some potential sources to improve coverage of his directing by film before this heads off to FAC. In some cases we might replace some general production info with analysis into his methods, but generally I don't think it reads excessively despite the length as Ian Rose said. It's very difficult writing a "perfect" article on somebody like Kubrick, and I believe overall there's a decent balance.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I do appreciate that Kubrick's career is one of great interest, that has sparked a lot of discussion and commentary, so I don't expect that the information we have on him and his works will be thin. The difficulty is the nature of WP's aim to deliver information in a digital format that works across a variety of devices/net connections, the primary reason WP:SIZE exists, and why we encourage summary-style writing. Hence why knowing the film article exists so that more details on those can be fleshed out there. Of course, in considering summary style, another option that would be open for a person like Kubrick is to have a separate "filmography" article (though I don't know if I would call it that), using the film career section (which as I read it is more factual/biographical as opposed to commentary on Kubrick as a director which is described later in the article) as the basis and letting that flesh out more; you'd want to then provide a 3-5 paragraph summary on that in this article. You'd still be covering the director aspects in this main bio article, and you'd still have space to include more information on both pages without worrying about SIZE for some time. But that does affect the GA/PR/FA process obviously, so I'm just leaving those on the table as opinions to consider. There's nothing "required" to be fixed here , but if length is concern, here are a few options to fix that. --MASEM (t) 15:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the wait. I have a lot less pressure on me now so I'll begin writing up the review tomorrow. JAGUAR  20:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Initial comments

Lead

• "and are noted for their unique cinematography and set design, attention to detail and realism, dark humor, and the evocative use of music" - this would sound better without the extra "and"

 Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• " This followed by two collaborations with Kirk Douglas, the war picture Paths of Glory (1957) and the historical epic Spartacus (1960)" - this would read better as This was followed by two collaborations with Kirk Douglas; the war picture Paths of Glory (1957) and the historical epic Spartacus (1960) (with a semi-colon)

 Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• "His reputation in Hollywood grew as a fine filmmaker, and he was approached by Marlon Brando" - what is 'fine' referring to here?

@Jaguar: I believe "fine" refers to this sentence — "Paths of Glory became his first significant commercial success, and established Kubrick as an up-and-coming young filmmaker. Critics praised the film's unsentimental, spare, and unvarnished combat scenes and its raw, black-and-white cinematography." I have removed the "fine" word. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• "His home at Childwickbury Manor in Hertfordshire, just north of London, which he shared with his wife Christiane" - I would remove "just north of London" as it seems a bit irrelevant and shortens the sentence

 Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Body

• The first sentence of the Early life section is too long to read comfortably. "Stanley Kubrick was born on July 26, 1928, in Lying-In Hospital at 307 2nd Avenue in The Bronx, New York City, the" - I would put a full stop between here

 Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• "The two would indulge in numerous photographic "assignments", crawling the streets looking for interesting subjects to capture" - sounds a bit informal

I have changed "assignments" to "projects" if that's alright. Do suggest any other alternative words. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• "having taken a photo to Helen O'Brian, head of the photographic department, who purchased it without hesitation for £25 on the spot" - if he was in America at this time, should this be in dollars?

Added a footnote regarding the conversion. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• "Kubrick shared a love of film with school pal Alexander Singer" - friend

 Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• " During the course of the film one of the soldiers becomes enchanted with a beautiful girl in the woods and binds her to a tree, noted for its close-ups of the face of the actress" - this doesn't work. "Enchanted" sounds like it's from a fantasy and the sentence structure isn't great. I would use "infatuated" instead of "enchanted" and would also rephrase the latter half of the sentence

 Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• "Kubrick began shooting footage on Times Square" - in Times Square

 Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• "The film met with limited commercial success and barely made any money over the $75,000 that United Artists had paid for it" - did United Artists pay for the film itself or was $75,000 the actual budget?

 Done It's the budget. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• "While playing chess on Washington Square" - again, perhaps this should be changed to in Washington Square

 Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• "Marlon Brando rang up Kubrick" - informal, contacted Kubrick would sound more like it

 Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• "One of the scenes is so striking in film in which the viewer moves through space, with a vibrant mix of lighting" - I'm not sure if this makes sense to me. "Striking" sounds like an opinion, and at first I thought this was a quote!

 Done rephrased. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• "Kubrick spent extensive hours editing, often working seven days a week, and more and more hours a day as he got closer to deadlines" - no need for repetition

 Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 14:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• "During the production of Paths of Glory in Munich in early 1957, Kubrick met and romanced the German actress Christiane Harlan, who played a small though memorable role" - in which film? Was it Paths for Glory?

 Done Yep, it was in POG. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 14:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• "about 48 km (30 mi) north of London" - imperial should be first

 Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 14:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• "entitled 'Stanley Kubrick: Taming Light'" - this should be in double quotes

 Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 14:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• " that were stored in Kubrick's home-workplace in the U.K" - 'UK' shouldn't be in initials

 Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 14:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

References

• No dead links, and all of the references are correctly formatted (so I don't have to worry about date formats either)! I expect the sources to be scrutinised in a future peer review, but I think the references comply per the GA criteria.

On hold

Well, that took me almost two hours to review! It's an excellent article, though I think there might be some length issues (perhaps WP:LEADLENGTH should be taken in mind), I think that can be a concern for a future FA review. In the mean time, it meets the GA criteria and I'm waiting for Ssven to finish addressing the last few concerns. Well done by the way! JAGUAR  13:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jaguar: Thanks for the review, Jaguar! I'm privileged to be a part of this. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 14:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of them, Ssven! OK this meets the GA criteria now. Honestly I think all other concerns such as length are secondary and can be dealt with in the future peer review. For now though, this is a very deserving Good Article and would like to thank everyone who helped bring this notable article up to GA. JAGUAR  19:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)