Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Birdman (film)/1

Birdman (film)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Concerns about the interpretation of source material is legitimate. Closing as delisted. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

During this DYK nomination it was raised that some sources didn't match the text used in the article. In addition it was raised that the original GA nomination may have not been as thorough as it should of been. A reassessment by experienced GA reviewers is required.Blethering Scot 11:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Original GA reviewer here. I didn't really figure in that some of the content might've been original research or incorrect/misinterpreted info. For that I apologize. RAP (talk) 13:02 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I should ask TonyTheTiger to review the reassessment of the article if he has that much time. He is good and helped reviewing my nomination of Dallas Buyers Club. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 02:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have become a very inactive reviewer since I have begun using a lot of my free time to Uber.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it fair to say that anyone who is researching a topic will have come across conflicting sources at some stage, and Birdman is no different. When I was writing the production section, I had originally thought that filming at the St. James Theatre lasted a month - it is what these [1] [2] sources seem to suggest. But note that in the first source, in the actual interview the timing around booking the St. James Theatre isn't discussed, while in the second, it isn't clear if the "Shooting took place over 30 days" is referring to all shooting in NY or just the shooting in the St. James.

The source I used in the article was this one, [3] since in this, a whole paragraph is dedicated to the timing issue, and the author talked to the director about it. Although there isn't a direct quote from Iñárritu saying the filming took two weeks, we can presume he told the interviewer this fact and then she included it in the paragraph. Also, by examining the sighting details on this page [4] we can see that from Apr 29 to May 3rd, the crew was spotted at 44th/45th St and 8th Ave - around the location of St. James Theatre.

We also see that from May 7th - 10th, the crew was seen at St. James Theatre.

But, on May 13th, the crew was seen at 47th St and 8th/9th Ave in NYC - near the location of The Rum House - see the figure near the bottom of the page here, for example - and for a few weeks after this the crew is sighted and locations different from the St. James.

From this it's fair to say that from Apr 29 - May 10 filming occurred at St. James. If we also assume that if there was filming at the St. James before this time, the crew would have be seen, (which I think is a fair assumption), it follows from the absence of previous sighting on the OLV page that filming at the St. James lasted two weeks.

This matches the New York magazine source. I suspected the NY magazine source was more reliable to begin with anyway, (for the reasons mentioned above) but the sightings for me confirmed it.

As for the original nomination, I think that the Release section is too sparse, the Production section incomplete, (there is still no post-production subsection, but I do plan to write this next) and there is no Themes section. Because of this I consider it to fail the "Broad in its coverage" GA criteria. Neuroxic (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the issue isn't just conflict of sources, it's interpretation of sources. The Skype sentence for example is clearly a step further than the source states. All the sources need checked to verify what they are supporting.Blethering Scot 11:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]