Talk:The Life and Deeds of the Immortal Leader Karađorđe/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 03:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

First, sorry that it's taken so long to get another review for you! Second, if this passes can we please have a DYK about the two Milorad Petrovics? Third, if you have a link to the film with translated intertitles, I'd love to watch it.

Style

• Lead of an appropriate length (if just on the longer side of apt) for the article length
• Information in lead apt regarding article; all expanded on and cited in main body
• Repetition of "success domestically" in Contemp. reception; maybe second instance could be "Despite its success in its native country" or something? Minor thought.
• I quite like the 'where did they end up' at the end of the Contemp. reception section.
• Nice write up of that section, too, handling of information solid. Spread through section in a nice way.
• The Rediscovery section is probably the bit that makes me want to watch the film. And Legacy. It's good, is what I'm saying.
• Nicely written. Good use of wikilinks (except maybe "postal service") and good layout of article in general. May benefit from tightening up for a FA nom (i.e. some repeated content through different sections that could be trimmed, but not major), but solidly meets criteria for GA.
• Passes

Coverage

• Plot description of a suitable length
• Good comprehensive coverage of the origins of the film, detailing background and reasoning, and giving some cultural perspectives.
• The first paragraph of Casting and cinematography is mostly a prose list that repeats the cast list; is there a way to diversify it a bit?
• Other paragraph of C&C is good, but a note that would improve the article further would be to see if you can expand to say what scenes were portrayed at the river banks, for example - certain fight sequences, camping. (If sources provide, of course)
• If you're going to give body space to the other Balkan films, then surely the relevant explanatory text in footnote [b] can be incorporated into the body text? I'd even suggest expanding the efn, and putting the Hungarian/Bulgarian/Croatian films into an efn.
• Good extensive coverage of response & restoration. And they are each a good length compared to the other.
• Is there not more critical analysis? A genuine question - what's written is good and, I guess, comprehensive, but I would expect there to be more, especially with gaining representation. However, the section provides a good representation of the different views in the literature, so it fulfills that (accurately reflecting the critical field).
• I've tweaked the mentions of Louis de Beery, so that WP voice doesn't say he worked for Pathé - especially in lead with no ref this was just misinformation. Even if the source doesn't say so, an efn that includes a link to the discovery will cover it.
• Passes - though can be improved (and I might work on it now that it's got me interested), nothing blocking from GA

Verifiability

• Ooh, you're using the fancy citation style. All sources look appropriate.
• No ref for the plot; as a generally inaccessible film that also has plenty sources on its rediscovery and restoration, it would seem better to have a plot ref
• Likewise with the cast
• Passes - but would be nice to have those refs

Neutrality

• Written neutrally
• Different views in critical field represented, with even weight and contextualizing of sources.
• Passes

Illustration

• Good use of commons images, well spread through article, good number for length.
• Could question the screenshot next to the Restoration section, but it seems related through the fact it is clearly a restored frame since it exists; though this could be elaborated in the caption.
• Passes

Copyvio

• check shows no copyvio
• I don't speak Serbian, but quality of sources and good paraphrasing of English sources gives me good faith on this one.
• Passes

Overall

• 

A nice article, well-written, got me interested in the film. I see room for improvement, but it meets GA. Kingsif (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Didn't include it (oops) but article is also v. stable. Kingsif (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Kingsif. Thanks for tackling this review! I've made some of the changes you recommended. Unfortunately, the film hasn't received an enormous amount of academic/scholarly attention, so this is the best I could do as far as analysis/content is concerned. Given the number of sources available, I've thrown everything but the kitchen sink at this article.

Concerning refs for the plot/cast, if the film was still lost I'd agree they are necessary, but as is common practice film summaries don't typically require citations. The major cast members are cited in the development section. I find that the development section is useful for providing background info on the performers, which a plain list just doesn't do.

As a side note, forgive me, but I don't quite understand your objections to de Beery being described as a Pathe cinematographer, as per Sudar. For many years it was believed that his relationship with Pathe was suspect but in the early 2000s it was discovered that de Beery was in fact a pseudonym and that he was registered with Pathe under his real name.

Ah, this wasn't explained in the article - I would suggest explaining that, then, both when he's introduced and as part of the rediscovery! Kingsif (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

As for the two Milorad Petrovics, I was thinking of having the DYK for this particular article state that this was the first Serbian and Balkan feature film. I do intend on creating an article about the adult actor, however. The two Milorad Petrovics can be the DYK for that article.

Nice ideas :) Kingsif (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

As you probably noticed the clips online only have Serbian intertitles. If you wish to find a copy with English intertitles your best bet would be to write an email to the Yugoslav Film Archive and ask them for assistance (see here ). The archive employs plenty of seasoned and well-educated film experts so you can definitely write it in English and expect to receive a cogent response. I'm sure they'd be more than happy to help. You could also head to your local university library (if you have access) and see if they have it.

And if you'd like to contribute to the article with the aim of promoting it to FA, you may do so by all means. Happy to have you onboard! 23 editor (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, and well done on the article! Kingsif (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)