Talk:The Wild Bunch/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 14:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

On first pass, this looks reasonably comprehensive, well-written, and ripe for promotion. The article does a particularly good job of explaining the film's role in cinema history as well as the usual facts about the film itself. I've made a few tweaks as I read; please feel free to revert those you disagree with.

• It's confusing to say that the bridge explosion kills the entire posse, and then to say Deke and the "remaining posse" catch up later--or do these characters fall into the Rio Grande but survive? (I saw this way back when, but it's been a while.) This might be clarified.

 Done ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• "would be perfected in The Wild Bunch" -- "perfected" seems mildly non-neutral here, and should probably be attributed in-text to the critic saying it

- Toned down the wording and added a source reinforcing the Dundee -> Bunch connection & transformation. Weddle never actually says this although the reader gets a clear picture of it over the page range listed in the citation. Wdyt? ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• "would forever change the way movies were made" -- this is a bit hyperbolic; another moment that it would be useful to attribute to a critic in-text

 Done ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Such complex oppositional ideas lead to the film's violent conclusion, as the remaining men find their abandonment of Angel intolerable. Pike Bishop remembers his betrayals, most notably when he deserts Deke Thornton (in flashback) when the law catches up to them; and when he abandons Crazy Lee at the bank after the robbery (ostensibly to guard the hostages)." -- this bit of interpretation needs an inline citation.

- Added a quote from Weddle that reinforces the "guilt" theme. He never uses the exact words "complex oppositional ideas" although the meaning stands to reason. Again, wdyt? ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me. What would you think about cutting the word "complex"? I buy that Weddle interprets it in terms of oppositional ideals, but I'm not sure the ideas are that complex, especially if Weddle doesn't use the word himself. Other than that, I think this works. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• The Empire 100 greatest list seems like it would fit better in the Awards, honors, and nominations section with the AFI lists.

 Done ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep, changes look good so far. Thanks for getting to these so quickly. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I only have one more quibble about the "complex" above; otherwise, this seems to me good to go. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Er, sorry, added one more action point below. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Note that in the era of the film's release" -- "note that" is language that should be cut per WP:WTA; this is also mildly original research-like unless a citation is provided connecting this individual to the film. (I agree that the connection seems likely, but a citation is still needed.)

I have quickly checked my various Peckinpah books and can find no definate references connecting this individual, although I seem to remember that several critics at the time of the initial release - did comment on this point. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done I've also checked my sources and did a quick google search but could find no reliable source so I removed the sentence. It always bothered me anyway, the way it sort of just hung there. If someone can find a WP:RS they are welcome to add it back in. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

That seems like the best solution. The connection drawn here makes a lot of sense, but without an RS I don't think we could keep it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Minor clarity issue with posse/bridge above. Spotchecks show no copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	One bit of interpretation, above, seems uncited.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	One or two opinions that appear to come from Weddle should probably be attributed in-text for neutrality.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The production stills are a particularly nice touch.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass