Talk:Still Alice

Still Alice has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: July 11, 2017. (Reviewed version).

Absurd to give this precedence

The book was published in 2007 and became a bestseller, sold in 30 countries and translated into more than 20 languages. The film has not even been released yet, so an article named for the film should not have precedence over an article on the original book. Parkwells (talk) 04:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to be bold and create a notable one for the book. The "precedence" occurring here is because none was created for the book. If none remains created, the film retains its precedence. — Wylie pedia 08:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the movie she's a linguistics professor

I have not read the novel, but in the movie (which I just saw an hour ago), Alice is very clearly a linguistics professor. In several scenes, this point is explicitly made. In one scene at a lecture, for instance, she is introduced as "the Lillian Young Professor of Linguistics at Columbia University." In a later scene, she's introduced by another character as "a former Professor of Linguistics at Columbia." One of her course reviews describes her as a professor of "Linguistics 201." One of her books is described by a character as being "considered one of the cornerstones of linguistics education all over the world." Alice opens a folder on her computer that's marked "Linguistics Classes." A number of the film's reviews mention specifically that she's a linguistics professor.[1][2][3][4]. So I will change the text accordingly. Siberian Husky (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Still Alice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Still Alice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Still Alice/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ribbet32 (talk · contribs) 00:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written:

1a Flows well; ~~what is this ",;" in the plot?~~ Otherwise good to go 1b needs some organizational tweaks. Critical and accolades should be subsections of an overarching "reception". Would like a brief, brief mention of the Sony hack in the lede too, since it's an important part of the release with its own subsection. Otherwise good to go

Verifiable with no original research

~~Ref 55 needs formatting, otherwise~~

Broad in its coverage:

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

Accolades section overlooks the fact that it was Moore's first Oscar [5] and that she was the frontrunner [6] while missing the critical dispute over its worthiness [7] [8], which could be balanced out by the praise in The Guardian and a reminder of the Rotten Tomatoes consensus 5. No horrific edit wars (The horror, the horror...)

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

Moore image is free, poster is attributed

@Ribbet32: Thanks for the helpful review, and sorry it took me a few days to respond. I think I've addressed all of your comments – thanks for the suggestion to elaborate on Moore's Oscar win, because I think it was worth noting. Let me know if you think anything else needs to be changed. 97198 (talk) 09:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @97198:; sorry, just noticed this in lede: "Moore's performance, who won numerous awards"- a performance is not a "who". Ribbet32 (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And there's no ref on the Women's Image Network Awards. Ribbet32 (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ribbet32: Good eye. I've adjusted the wording and removed that award from the table because I couldn't find any reference for it apart from IMDb. 97198 (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done @97198: Thank you, listed. Ribbet32 (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]