Talk:Taxi Driver/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Andrzejbanas (talk · contribs) 16:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be starting the review of this article shortly. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Lead and infobox

Alt text could be added to the film poster.

Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Producer Julia Phillips, Editors Marcia Lucas, Tom Rolf and Melvin Shapiro, the production companies, Columbia Pictures, the release date (!), and the country of production are unsourced.

As with other GA-articles, the poster serves as the source for the infobox for the producers, editors, cinematographers, billing block of actors, production companies, and distributor(s). That being said, a source has been added only for the release date. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sort of ok with that but only one production company is listed on that poster and two are in the infobox. This is why I prefer citations if possible, as to "keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article" (see MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE)Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your citation to a release does not match the content you added. As per above, this information can easily be added to the prose, I suggest putting the citation there once you can clarify when the film was released. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

, is unsourced and not mentioned anywhere in the article.

Question: What? All I see on my screen is ", is unsourced". Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whups That appears to be some leftover thought I didn't finish. Sorry about that. :D Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The citation for the running time in the infobox leads to a 404 error page.

Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "neo-noir psychological thriller" genre in the lead raises some issues. It appears to be just a drive by citation adding where someone googled the genre they wanted the film to fit under and added a boat load of sources. However, these sources currently ignore what some citations state. For example, one states "Taxi Driver, crossed the psychological thriller with the horror film". So should horror be included here too? Does it actually fit into these genres? These needs a revamp.

Removed genres as in Fight Club. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the Les Keyser sources link to a book , but not any page numbers.

Fixed Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the AllMovie source states the genres as "Drama" which is not what the source says here. It also states in its prose that the film is "Taxi Driver is an homage to and reworking of cinematic influences, a study of individual psychosis, and an acute diagnosis of the latently violent, media-fixated Vietnam era. Scorsese and Schrader structure Travis' mission to save Iris as a film noir version of John Ford's late Western The Searchers (1956),", so I guess this is supposed to be a citation for neo-noir? But that's not what the article says per WP:STICKTOSOURCE.

See above. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the genre seems to be a point of contention, some research on how the film fits into genre could be good and could warrant its own section, possibly under interpreations, etc.
The lead should cover more content of the production of the film. It currently skips from a brief intro summary of cast and director and plot than jumps to reception. More information should be added regarding the films production, controversies, and perhaps the themes and interpretations.

Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

There seems to be an excess of wikilinks to common terms people don't really need links to (New York City, infatuated, etc.)

Fixed Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some parts of the plot seem to be intepretations of the story which should be removed, specifically "Travis is disgusted by the sleaze, dysfunction, and prostitution that he witnesses throughout the city, and struggles to find meaning for his existence". Perhaps write something he does that suggests he is doing this?

Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cast

Per WP:FILMCAST, . "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so it is encouraged to name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film: billing, speaking roles, named roles, cast lists in reliable sources, blue links (in some cases), etc. If there are many cast members worth identifying, there are two recommended options: the names may be listed in two or three columns, or the names may be grouped in prose." We seem to have an excessive list of the cast who don't seem to have speaking roles or even named characters. Is there a reason to include them? If not, you can probably remove the ones lead to characters without any major dialogue, are not mentioned in the plot, or are actors who don't have their own section on wikipedia.

Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Production

the lead part of this section seems to just toss in the budget, but the source given shows more information which should probably be included (the original budget was 1.3 million than swelled to 1.9. what made it go in this direction? When did this happen? I feel like we are missing out on some key information.)

Fixed Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The information about describing Travis Bickle's character seems to be a mish-mash of character interpretation and how Scorsese envisioned the chraracter but also how he wrote him and how it turned out. This is weird to have in a section before pre-production and seems to go against the standards of MOS:FILM.

Done Removed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Scorsese on Scorsese book needs page number for its source.

Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citation 12 for The Films of Martin Scorsese and Robert De Niro has no page number(s) for its source.

Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The mention of the specific sex film that they go see seems trivial and not really related to symbolism. It also kind of lacks context and seems trivial. Other than being interesting, is there a reason for this to be here?

Done Removed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add the link here to the Hollywood Reporter citation. Also, this section doesn't really seem like it belongs in an area called Symbolism as it seems to do more with post-production and editing.

Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the "Roberto De Niro's preperation for the role" does not really need its own section as its very short. It would fit better into a pre-production section.

Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Art of the Title section titled "Dan Perri: A Career Retrospective" states its archived, but there is no URL attached? Again, these sections in production seem to be somewhat randomly organized with no real focus on what happened when. Add the source here: https://www.artofthetitle.com/feature/dan-perri-a-career-retrospective/

Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Hollywood Reporter article that starts with Tribecca seems to be this article, i'd suggest linking it an archiving it.

Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to stop for now as I feel the production section needs a large overhaul for citations, clarity and formatting. It doesn't really flow currently and surely could be expanded with further information. I'd suggest looking at WP:FILMPRODUCTION and trying to follow the template and suggestions there. I'll give a week to see how the article is doing. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right lets continue.

Generally speaking a lot of information in the production section is split into minor categories but this doesn't seem really useful when they are all only about a paragraph long. I'd suggest either expanding upon them or removing the headings.

#Production is split into three sections. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a heads up, some information has not been addressed above. For example you state that the poster is the source for information in the infobox. However, you have left the production company "Italo/Judeo Productions" which does not seem to be anywhere on the poster. This is why I think you need to actually get sources because this isn't there at all. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for the production section some of the things don't seem like they belong in this section such as the influence on the camera work in the film would probably fit better into the filming section. The section on "religious symbolism" would also probably be better in a themes section. However, on doing this, this leaves the pre-production section pretty blanks. Can information be dug up on how Schrader and Scorsese met up to plan this picture? I feel like this section needs a real work around.

Pre production also seems pretty empty for such a major film. You have info on how Robert De Niro and the title designer are gathered. And I know there is information even on the blu-ray of Taxi Driver of what an ordeal it was to get Bernard Herrmann involved.

Filming section also seems relatively small in detail for such a major film. Surely there's more information out there?

Soundtrack

What makes [1] this source pass WP:RS? Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Jackson Browne mention seems trivial and lacks context.
No information on Scorsese and the use of The Silver Tongued Devil and I in the film?

Controversies

There is a good chunk of information regarding the casting of Jodie Foster which could go into the pre-production section.
"Some critics showed concern over 12-year-old Foster's presence during the climactic shoot-out." I don't see anything mentioning this in the source provided.
The source titled "Jodie Foster details how 'uncomfortable'..." needs its publisher, date, and author. Probably should note that source requires a subscription to view as well.
The book source should note its publisher.
the "Scorsese: a journey through the American psyche." needs a page number
The ""Hinckley Found Not Guilty, Insane"" needs a publisher and a date, author, etc.
The "Taxi Driver" book by Taubin needs a page number. Also, the use of of "some critics" could use more detail. Who? Names and where this was discussed would help here.
Source titled ""'Taxi Driver' Oral History: De Niro, Scorsese, Foster, Schrader Spill All on 40th Anniversary"" needs a publisher, author, date, etc.
The sentence titled "n the special-edition DVD, Michael Chapman" needs a source.

Themes

Laser disc commentary needs a better more detailed source (which laserdisc? timestamp? etc.)
Ditto with the DVD commentary. It's probably also not needed to say where these interviews take place (as that's what the source does) but perhaps when they were recorded if such information is possible or when it was released publicly.
Again, the neo-noir parts need context. Who is calling it this? Why does it fall under these genres?

Reception

Probably better to have the release date source in this section instead of being sourced in the infobox.
There is only one contemporary review of Taxi Driver in this section which definitely should be expanded upon.
I have mixed feelings on adding Rotten Tomatoes and MetaCritic which combine both contemporary and retrospective reviews as an "overall reception" to older films. This doesn't give readers a clear idea on how the film was interperted. I would go through it and confirm it's either predominantly contemporary or retrospective and make note of that in in the prose.

Accolades

Several awards are unsourced here. There status needs a source. If possible, it would be great if we can have a date of when these awards were given, but that's not needed for GA.

I'll go through more again soon as the above seems like a lot on anyones plate. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, @Andrzejbanas, could you fail the article now? When I nominated it in January, I wasn't even a major contributor, and I just don't feel like I should be as I lack knowledge/research of the topic itself. Seeing it months later, I notice that the article already needed a lot of work to even make it to B-level status, let alone GA. So again, feel free to fail the article now as I have withdrawn my nomination. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, sorry to hear. Hopefully someone can boost this up to GA eventually. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the users request and the unifnished sections on production, release, and reception, I will be failing this article at this time. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]