GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Colin M ( talk · contribs) 04:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Preliminary review with more detailed comments (on issues that have mostly since been resolved) are below.
Hi, let me just start by saying this is my first GA review, so I'm still learning the process. If you think any of my comments are out of scope of the good article criteria, let me know. Preliminary review below.
On the whole, I think this article is in a pretty good state. There are four problem areas that I think would need to be improved for it to meet the GA criteria (which I'll elaborate on shortly):
MOS:LEADLENGTH recommends generally no more than 4 paragraphs for the lead. This article is at exactly four, and the middle two are quite long. I think it could benefit from some trimming.
Consider removing the plot summaries of individual films from the lead. Reservoir Dogs has no description of its content, and Pulp Fiction is just described as "a black comedy crime film". I think these are fine. But later films get more description, e.g. Inglourious Basterds, which tells the fictional alternate history story of two plots to assassinate Nazi Germany's political leadership
or His eighth film, the mystery-Western
The Hateful Eight, was released in its
roadshow version December 25, 2015, in
70 mm film format, complete with opening "overture" and halfway-point intermission, after the fashion of big-budget films of the 1960s and early 1970s.
Similarly, I think something like It became the highest-grossing film of his career thus far, making over $425 million at the box office.
is a detail that could be excised from the lead.
To start, I'll note that WP:CSECTION advises against "Controversies" sections in general. That's not a mark against GA status (I'm sure there are lots of Good Articles that have such sections), but I think the points in that essay are relevant, particularly the uneasy tension between a "Controversies" section and WP:NPOV. I think merging some of these subsections into other parts of the article would be salutary both in terms of NPOV, and having a more natural flow.
(FWIW, I was curious enough to spot-check a bunch of biographical featured articles, and I didn't find any that had a "Controversies" or "Criticism" section, even on articles where you might expect one like Walt Disney, Janet Jackson, Courtney Love, Evelyn Waugh, etc. Take that for what you will.)
Anyways, some comments on specific subsections below...
I really love the first paragraph of the intro starting from the second sentence:
His films are characterized by nonlinear storylines; satirical subject matter; an aestheticization of violence; extended scenes of dialogue; ensemble casts consisting of established and lesser-known performers; references to popular culture and a wide variety of other films; soundtracks primarily containing songs and score pieces from the 1960s to the 1980s; and features of neo-noir film.
But per WP:SUMMARY, each of the points summarized in the lead should be detailed in the article. Some of the features in the above paragraph are discussed at § Influences and style of filmmaking, but it seems like the following get no attention in the body:
I think these could be expanded on in § Influences and style of filmmaking (which should probably be broken into subsections).
This last one is a bit of a doozy. I think there's a readability issue towards the end of the article. Starting from § Filmography up until the references, the article content is almost entirely lists and tables - about 5-6 screen lengths worth on my monitor. I think some of this content should be split into a separate article, and some should probably be prosified/removed.
As a Tarantino fan, this is interesting to me. As a Wikipedia editor, it makes me leery. One big concern I have with it is readability. I can tell effort has been taken to make it compact (e.g. by reducing font size), but it's unreadable on mobile and takes up most of the screen when viewed on a 1920x1080 display. If Tarantino directs one more movie and we need to add another column, it's going to explode. See Martin_Scorsese#Frequent_collaborators for an example where this goes off the rails. My other issue is whether it constitutes unnecessary detail. Do we really need a list of every actor who has appeared in more than one QT film in his article? Including actors like Bo Svenson who apparently only appeared in minor roles/cameos? Finally, there's a WP:OR angle - it may be verifiably true that, e.g. Laura Cayouette appeared in two QT films, but lacking a source talking about their work together, is it OR to describe them as "frequent collaborator" or imply they have some kind of special relationship?
Apparently Christopher Nolan (which is a GA) used to have such a table, but consensus was to remove it. You can find the discussion here.
My recommendation would be to remove the table, and summarize its key aspects in prose. The first paragraph of § Frequent collaborators actually does a good job of this already. You could add to it, or just leave it as is.
This section is a slog to scroll through. Per WP:SUMMARY, I think this would be a good candidate for splitting into a separate article like List of awards and nominations received by Quentin Tarantino. This seems like a pretty common practice for prolific artists who have been nominated for lots of awards. If you do so, I would also merge "Other lifetime honors" into it.
Again, while I personally find this interesting, I think it's an excessive level of detail for his Wikipedia article. The most important award wins and noms as well as the general critical reception of each film are already given in the "Career" section when talking about the film. If I want to know precisely how many Oscars/BAFTAs a particular film won or was nominated for, I can go to its article. If you did create List of awards and nominations received by Quentin Tarantino, there's perhaps an argument for including this information there, though it seems a bit WP:INDISCRIMINATE to me.
Basically ditto the above. If this table were to be preserved somewhere, I think it would be a better fit for Quentin Tarantino filmography. For example, Seth Rogen filmography has a section dedicated to critical reception of his major works, Woody Allen filmography has columns for boc office gross and Rotten Tomatoes score.
This list is short and interesting, but:
I had some other thoughts, but they're more along the lines of suggested improvements rather than strict requirements for GA, and I've already written a lot, so I'll stop here for now. Colin M ( talk) 04:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
In some places in the § Career section, I felt that some time was spent describing work (especially acting roles) that wasn't particularly significant or noteworthy in the context of his career.
This mostly happens in the Quentin Tarantino § 1990s: Breakthrough subsection. For example:
Also in 1992, he played an asylum attendant in Jeff Burr's Eddie Presley starring Duane Whitaker in the title role.
He had a cameo appearance in Sleep With Me, an American comedy-drama film starring Meg Tilly, Eric Stoltz and Craig Sheffer. The film was screened in the Un Certain Regard section at the 1994 Cannes Film Festival. He also played the role of a bartender in Somebody to Love directed by Alexandre Rockwell. It entered the competition at the 51st Venice International Film Festival.
In 1995, he appeared as Desmond in one episode of All-American Girl. Shortly after, Tarantino appeared in Destiny Turns on the Radio, an American comedy film, with Dylan McDermott, Nancy Travis, James LeGros, and James Belushi.
The paragraph about his acting credits in 1994 is longer than the paragraph that talks about Pulp Fiction! I would trim a lot of the mentions of his acting roles, unless you can justify why they were significant in the context of his career. (e.g. if it was his first acting role, if he played a major part, if his acting was nominated for any awards or commented on by critics, etc.)
Another option I really like is to have a separate subsection specifically about his career as an actor (similar to the § As producer subsection you have now). I would still try to winnow down the specific roles discussed to ones that are particularly interesting or significant, but it would be a good opportunity to also discuss some general aspects of QT as an actor, e.g.:
I found almost all the writing in this article to be tremendously clear and concise. The only exception are a few places in the § Influences and style of filmmaking that use some overly florid language that obscure the idea being expressed:
Tarantino often manipulates the use of commodities in order to propel plot development or to present an intriguing juxtaposition that ultimately enhances his notorious combination of humor and violence, equating a branded genre with branded consumption. He often pairs bizarre props with an equally bizarre scene, in which the prop itself develops into something of higher substance.
Tarantino often uses graphic violence that has proven seductive to audiences, and he has been harshly criticized for his use of gore and blood in an entrancing yet simultaneously repulsive way. His films have been staunchly criticized and scorned for their use of violence, blood and action as a "color" within cinema, and rebuked for allegedly using human suffering as a punchline.
He often seeks to harness, manipulate and ultimately imitate the aesthetic elements and conventions typically used in the cartoon medium. More specifically, he often attempts to meld comic strip formulas and aesthetics within a live action film sequence, in some cases by the literal use of cartoon or anime images. Tarantino's cinematic ambition to marry artistic expression via live action and cartoonism is yet another example of his ability to morph genres and conventions to produce a new and authentic style of his own.
Also, all of these seem to be cited to niche academic papers (with single-digit citations). If you think there's a valuable kernel of information in any of these, I would try to rewrite them in plain English and find better sources. Colin M ( talk) 16:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
According to WP:GACR, citations are needed for "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons".
The following statistics need citations:
The film has grossed over $200 million and was met with critical acclaim.
In 2004, he brought the Chinese martial arts film Hero to U.S. shores. It ended up having a No. 1 opening at the box office and making $53.5 million. In 2006, another "Quentin Tarantino presents" production, Hostel, opened at No. 1 at the box office with a $20.1 million opening weekend, good for 8th all time in January.
This quote needs to be sourced: By 1997, Miramax had shut down the company due to "lack of interest" in the pictures released.
I think there's also a sourcing issue with this:
The film engendered enmity, and the publication of a "tell all" book titled Killer Instinct by Jane Hamsher—who, with Don Murphy, had an original option on the screenplay and produced the film—led to Tarantino physically assaulting Murphy in the AGO restaurant in West Hollywood, California in October 1997. Murphy subsequently filed a $5M lawsuit against Tarantino, which was eventually settled out of court.
There's one reference given for all this. That link establishes the fact that a $5M lawsuit was filed, but it does not establish:
Colin M ( talk) 18:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Colin M, I believe I've addressed most or all of the issues you've presented. Most I've made changes to, though a few comments above on sections where I either didn't fully agree, or wasn't quite clear on. I'd very much appreciate another look over, when you can. Thanks so much for taking this on. Cheers – Broccoli & Coffee ( Oh hai) 05:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Colin M ( talk · contribs) 04:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Preliminary review with more detailed comments (on issues that have mostly since been resolved) are below.
Hi, let me just start by saying this is my first GA review, so I'm still learning the process. If you think any of my comments are out of scope of the good article criteria, let me know. Preliminary review below.
On the whole, I think this article is in a pretty good state. There are four problem areas that I think would need to be improved for it to meet the GA criteria (which I'll elaborate on shortly):
MOS:LEADLENGTH recommends generally no more than 4 paragraphs for the lead. This article is at exactly four, and the middle two are quite long. I think it could benefit from some trimming.
Consider removing the plot summaries of individual films from the lead. Reservoir Dogs has no description of its content, and Pulp Fiction is just described as "a black comedy crime film". I think these are fine. But later films get more description, e.g. Inglourious Basterds, which tells the fictional alternate history story of two plots to assassinate Nazi Germany's political leadership
or His eighth film, the mystery-Western
The Hateful Eight, was released in its
roadshow version December 25, 2015, in
70 mm film format, complete with opening "overture" and halfway-point intermission, after the fashion of big-budget films of the 1960s and early 1970s.
Similarly, I think something like It became the highest-grossing film of his career thus far, making over $425 million at the box office.
is a detail that could be excised from the lead.
To start, I'll note that WP:CSECTION advises against "Controversies" sections in general. That's not a mark against GA status (I'm sure there are lots of Good Articles that have such sections), but I think the points in that essay are relevant, particularly the uneasy tension between a "Controversies" section and WP:NPOV. I think merging some of these subsections into other parts of the article would be salutary both in terms of NPOV, and having a more natural flow.
(FWIW, I was curious enough to spot-check a bunch of biographical featured articles, and I didn't find any that had a "Controversies" or "Criticism" section, even on articles where you might expect one like Walt Disney, Janet Jackson, Courtney Love, Evelyn Waugh, etc. Take that for what you will.)
Anyways, some comments on specific subsections below...
I really love the first paragraph of the intro starting from the second sentence:
His films are characterized by nonlinear storylines; satirical subject matter; an aestheticization of violence; extended scenes of dialogue; ensemble casts consisting of established and lesser-known performers; references to popular culture and a wide variety of other films; soundtracks primarily containing songs and score pieces from the 1960s to the 1980s; and features of neo-noir film.
But per WP:SUMMARY, each of the points summarized in the lead should be detailed in the article. Some of the features in the above paragraph are discussed at § Influences and style of filmmaking, but it seems like the following get no attention in the body:
I think these could be expanded on in § Influences and style of filmmaking (which should probably be broken into subsections).
This last one is a bit of a doozy. I think there's a readability issue towards the end of the article. Starting from § Filmography up until the references, the article content is almost entirely lists and tables - about 5-6 screen lengths worth on my monitor. I think some of this content should be split into a separate article, and some should probably be prosified/removed.
As a Tarantino fan, this is interesting to me. As a Wikipedia editor, it makes me leery. One big concern I have with it is readability. I can tell effort has been taken to make it compact (e.g. by reducing font size), but it's unreadable on mobile and takes up most of the screen when viewed on a 1920x1080 display. If Tarantino directs one more movie and we need to add another column, it's going to explode. See Martin_Scorsese#Frequent_collaborators for an example where this goes off the rails. My other issue is whether it constitutes unnecessary detail. Do we really need a list of every actor who has appeared in more than one QT film in his article? Including actors like Bo Svenson who apparently only appeared in minor roles/cameos? Finally, there's a WP:OR angle - it may be verifiably true that, e.g. Laura Cayouette appeared in two QT films, but lacking a source talking about their work together, is it OR to describe them as "frequent collaborator" or imply they have some kind of special relationship?
Apparently Christopher Nolan (which is a GA) used to have such a table, but consensus was to remove it. You can find the discussion here.
My recommendation would be to remove the table, and summarize its key aspects in prose. The first paragraph of § Frequent collaborators actually does a good job of this already. You could add to it, or just leave it as is.
This section is a slog to scroll through. Per WP:SUMMARY, I think this would be a good candidate for splitting into a separate article like List of awards and nominations received by Quentin Tarantino. This seems like a pretty common practice for prolific artists who have been nominated for lots of awards. If you do so, I would also merge "Other lifetime honors" into it.
Again, while I personally find this interesting, I think it's an excessive level of detail for his Wikipedia article. The most important award wins and noms as well as the general critical reception of each film are already given in the "Career" section when talking about the film. If I want to know precisely how many Oscars/BAFTAs a particular film won or was nominated for, I can go to its article. If you did create List of awards and nominations received by Quentin Tarantino, there's perhaps an argument for including this information there, though it seems a bit WP:INDISCRIMINATE to me.
Basically ditto the above. If this table were to be preserved somewhere, I think it would be a better fit for Quentin Tarantino filmography. For example, Seth Rogen filmography has a section dedicated to critical reception of his major works, Woody Allen filmography has columns for boc office gross and Rotten Tomatoes score.
This list is short and interesting, but:
I had some other thoughts, but they're more along the lines of suggested improvements rather than strict requirements for GA, and I've already written a lot, so I'll stop here for now. Colin M ( talk) 04:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
In some places in the § Career section, I felt that some time was spent describing work (especially acting roles) that wasn't particularly significant or noteworthy in the context of his career.
This mostly happens in the Quentin Tarantino § 1990s: Breakthrough subsection. For example:
Also in 1992, he played an asylum attendant in Jeff Burr's Eddie Presley starring Duane Whitaker in the title role.
He had a cameo appearance in Sleep With Me, an American comedy-drama film starring Meg Tilly, Eric Stoltz and Craig Sheffer. The film was screened in the Un Certain Regard section at the 1994 Cannes Film Festival. He also played the role of a bartender in Somebody to Love directed by Alexandre Rockwell. It entered the competition at the 51st Venice International Film Festival.
In 1995, he appeared as Desmond in one episode of All-American Girl. Shortly after, Tarantino appeared in Destiny Turns on the Radio, an American comedy film, with Dylan McDermott, Nancy Travis, James LeGros, and James Belushi.
The paragraph about his acting credits in 1994 is longer than the paragraph that talks about Pulp Fiction! I would trim a lot of the mentions of his acting roles, unless you can justify why they were significant in the context of his career. (e.g. if it was his first acting role, if he played a major part, if his acting was nominated for any awards or commented on by critics, etc.)
Another option I really like is to have a separate subsection specifically about his career as an actor (similar to the § As producer subsection you have now). I would still try to winnow down the specific roles discussed to ones that are particularly interesting or significant, but it would be a good opportunity to also discuss some general aspects of QT as an actor, e.g.:
I found almost all the writing in this article to be tremendously clear and concise. The only exception are a few places in the § Influences and style of filmmaking that use some overly florid language that obscure the idea being expressed:
Tarantino often manipulates the use of commodities in order to propel plot development or to present an intriguing juxtaposition that ultimately enhances his notorious combination of humor and violence, equating a branded genre with branded consumption. He often pairs bizarre props with an equally bizarre scene, in which the prop itself develops into something of higher substance.
Tarantino often uses graphic violence that has proven seductive to audiences, and he has been harshly criticized for his use of gore and blood in an entrancing yet simultaneously repulsive way. His films have been staunchly criticized and scorned for their use of violence, blood and action as a "color" within cinema, and rebuked for allegedly using human suffering as a punchline.
He often seeks to harness, manipulate and ultimately imitate the aesthetic elements and conventions typically used in the cartoon medium. More specifically, he often attempts to meld comic strip formulas and aesthetics within a live action film sequence, in some cases by the literal use of cartoon or anime images. Tarantino's cinematic ambition to marry artistic expression via live action and cartoonism is yet another example of his ability to morph genres and conventions to produce a new and authentic style of his own.
Also, all of these seem to be cited to niche academic papers (with single-digit citations). If you think there's a valuable kernel of information in any of these, I would try to rewrite them in plain English and find better sources. Colin M ( talk) 16:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
According to WP:GACR, citations are needed for "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons".
The following statistics need citations:
The film has grossed over $200 million and was met with critical acclaim.
In 2004, he brought the Chinese martial arts film Hero to U.S. shores. It ended up having a No. 1 opening at the box office and making $53.5 million. In 2006, another "Quentin Tarantino presents" production, Hostel, opened at No. 1 at the box office with a $20.1 million opening weekend, good for 8th all time in January.
This quote needs to be sourced: By 1997, Miramax had shut down the company due to "lack of interest" in the pictures released.
I think there's also a sourcing issue with this:
The film engendered enmity, and the publication of a "tell all" book titled Killer Instinct by Jane Hamsher—who, with Don Murphy, had an original option on the screenplay and produced the film—led to Tarantino physically assaulting Murphy in the AGO restaurant in West Hollywood, California in October 1997. Murphy subsequently filed a $5M lawsuit against Tarantino, which was eventually settled out of court.
There's one reference given for all this. That link establishes the fact that a $5M lawsuit was filed, but it does not establish:
Colin M ( talk) 18:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Colin M, I believe I've addressed most or all of the issues you've presented. Most I've made changes to, though a few comments above on sections where I either didn't fully agree, or wasn't quite clear on. I'd very much appreciate another look over, when you can. Thanks so much for taking this on. Cheers – Broccoli & Coffee ( Oh hai) 05:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)