This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
A fact from Serpico appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 February 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that Serpico was filmed in reverse, and
Al Pacino(pictured) had to be shaved as the shooting progressed?
The plot line says: "Chief Sidney Green fears Serpico may have been shot by a cop."
In the first scene, the chief is clearly upset and concerned about Serpico's safety right after the shooting when he assigns a 24-hour guard and based on his demeanor. There would be good reason for the chief to be concerned a cop shot him--based on the rest of the film. But he never says anything directly to indicate exactly who or why Serpico was shot or why he would need a guard. Watching it, and knowing that Serpico was a whisteblower before I started the movie, I believed that was probably the chief's concern.
But the film is clever in use of "show don't tell", and we don't know precisely what the chief is thinking or fearing, or why he assigned the guard. This ambiguity is part of what draws the viewer in to find out why the chief feels there needs to be a 24-hour guard.
So although I think many viewers would tend to believe this was likely the chief's fear, the sentence above is too direct, and does not do justice to the screenplay. Unfortunately, I can't think of a simple way to describe the beauty in which the director gives us strong clues about what the chief is fearing.
I will try and come back to this and see if I can think of something.
In the meantime, I put in a comment in the plot to point here with my desire to improve the sentence to say it more subtly as the screenplay does. --
David Tornheim (
talk)
10:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Remove all uses of (equivalent to $[number] in 2019). Fixed
@
Some Dude From North Carolina: As an opening comment, I want to thank you for taking the review. Now, a comment about the inflation templates:
Can we keep at least the one regarding how much Maas got paid and maybe for the budget? I want readers to understand that productions were not cheaper back then (I just think of younger readers that may not be fully aware of how much the Dollar really depreciated). I understand we can't leave it all because they make reading the article bothersome (it was brought to my attention by a reader in another article), but at least leaving one provides context. I did also delete all the instances of "US$" after the first use, and just left it at "$".--GDuwenHoller!10:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The reference after "quit in return" should be for page
79, not 80. Fixed
"de Laurentiis" → "De Laurentiis" Fixed
Production
The reference after "movable walls" should be for page 32, not 31. Fixed
Everything else looks good.
Release
Can't cite IMDb, so replace the reference after "three years in the 1980s".
My bad, I wasn't citing IMDb. I intended to use the documentary directly as a source via
Template:cite AV media, but I provided the IMDb link for it. I removed the link now, and used instead the catalog number of the home media release.--GDuwenHoller!20:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Champlin's article is linked already in the production section. Since I already had introduced him earlier, I felt that I could only call him "Champlin". I could alternatively write his entire name without the wikilink.--GDuwenHoller!19:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)reply
I was citing the Blu-ray disc directly. I did again commit the distracting mistake of adding the Amazon locator. I replaced it with the catalog number of the Paramount Home media release.--GDuwenHoller!21:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Names like "Pacino", "Lumet", "Salt and Wexler", and "Theodorakis" should be in full every time they're used. Fixed
The Directors Guild of America Award nomination isn't mentioned in this
reference.
Not directly, but it is there. The website's design is a bit odd. You get to see it only if you click "Winners and Nominees". By default, you are shown "Winners". There seems to be no direct way to link it as far as I can see.--GDuwenHoller!20:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Other
Images
"Pacino as Frank Serpico, in a publicity portrait" → "Pacino as Frank Serpico in a publicity portrait" Fixed
Actually, try linking all websites/publishers/newspapers in all citations. Done (where possible)
Don't add "[company] staff" into author parameters. If there's no attributed author, don't add anything.Not done
Archive all archivable sources (I recommend signing up and using this
free tool).
Thanks for the tool, nice to have such resources! it was a pain to do it one by one. When it comes to the "staff" in the author parameters, I need it for the footnote system of the Harvard references. The author parameter, year of publication and page (if we are talking about a book, newspaper or magazine) are required. If an author is missing, the link on the shorted footnote would fail to point to the source at the bottom.--GDuwenHoller!20:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Overview
GAN table
GA review (see
here for what the criteria are, and
here for what they are not)
@
GDuwen: Well, I just finished adding my notes at #References. Don't forget to look at my reply at #Premiere_reception and to do the only suggestion at #Production. After doing so, ping me, and if I don't see any more problems, this article will be passed. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk?19:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Some Dude From North Carolina: Yea, I can do it manually in case it doesn't work. But the main thing is that every single page is archived in the Wayback Machine. If for some reason the links go dead, wikibots are able to replace them without intervention. I'm not really a heavy tool user, but I've seen that the ones I archived manually in the past were replaced without me taking any particular action.--GDuwenHoller!21:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
this nomination's talk page,
the article's talk page or
Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
... that Serpico was filmed in inverse order, and that
Al Pacino(pictured) had to be shaved as the shooting progressed? pp.30-31 of Sharples, Win Jr. (February 1974). "The Filming of Serpico". Filmmakers Newsletter. 7 (4) (seen in
this link, scroll down to find the publication); p. 160 Spiegel, Maura (2019). Sidney Lumet: A Life. St. Martin's Publishing Group.
ISBN978-1-250-03014-6.
ALT1:... that during the production of Serpico(
Al Pacino pictured as
Frank Serpico) winter conditions had to be simulated as it was filmed during the summer of 1972? p. 31 of Sharples, Win Jr. (February 1974). "The Filming of Serpico". Filmmakers Newsletter. 7 (4) (seen in
this link, scroll down to find the publication)
ALT2:... that the production team of Serpico(
Al Pacino pictured as
Frank Serpico) had difficulty to find locations with walls free of graffiti for the scenes set in the 1960s?
The article looks excellent and was recently promoted to GA (congrats!). All of the hooks look good and are adequately sourced here and within the article. I think the first one goes quite well with the image provided. QPQ has been done. Good work. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️05:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Good observation. I suppose that would be because the movie probably obscured the original success of the book and its existence got reduced to just be the source from which the film was adapted (as it happened to a bunch of other works). There's always room for improvement in Wikipedia!--GDuwenHoller!18:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
A fact from Serpico appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 February 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that Serpico was filmed in reverse, and
Al Pacino(pictured) had to be shaved as the shooting progressed?
The plot line says: "Chief Sidney Green fears Serpico may have been shot by a cop."
In the first scene, the chief is clearly upset and concerned about Serpico's safety right after the shooting when he assigns a 24-hour guard and based on his demeanor. There would be good reason for the chief to be concerned a cop shot him--based on the rest of the film. But he never says anything directly to indicate exactly who or why Serpico was shot or why he would need a guard. Watching it, and knowing that Serpico was a whisteblower before I started the movie, I believed that was probably the chief's concern.
But the film is clever in use of "show don't tell", and we don't know precisely what the chief is thinking or fearing, or why he assigned the guard. This ambiguity is part of what draws the viewer in to find out why the chief feels there needs to be a 24-hour guard.
So although I think many viewers would tend to believe this was likely the chief's fear, the sentence above is too direct, and does not do justice to the screenplay. Unfortunately, I can't think of a simple way to describe the beauty in which the director gives us strong clues about what the chief is fearing.
I will try and come back to this and see if I can think of something.
In the meantime, I put in a comment in the plot to point here with my desire to improve the sentence to say it more subtly as the screenplay does. --
David Tornheim (
talk)
10:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Remove all uses of (equivalent to $[number] in 2019). Fixed
@
Some Dude From North Carolina: As an opening comment, I want to thank you for taking the review. Now, a comment about the inflation templates:
Can we keep at least the one regarding how much Maas got paid and maybe for the budget? I want readers to understand that productions were not cheaper back then (I just think of younger readers that may not be fully aware of how much the Dollar really depreciated). I understand we can't leave it all because they make reading the article bothersome (it was brought to my attention by a reader in another article), but at least leaving one provides context. I did also delete all the instances of "US$" after the first use, and just left it at "$".--GDuwenHoller!10:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The reference after "quit in return" should be for page
79, not 80. Fixed
"de Laurentiis" → "De Laurentiis" Fixed
Production
The reference after "movable walls" should be for page 32, not 31. Fixed
Everything else looks good.
Release
Can't cite IMDb, so replace the reference after "three years in the 1980s".
My bad, I wasn't citing IMDb. I intended to use the documentary directly as a source via
Template:cite AV media, but I provided the IMDb link for it. I removed the link now, and used instead the catalog number of the home media release.--GDuwenHoller!20:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Champlin's article is linked already in the production section. Since I already had introduced him earlier, I felt that I could only call him "Champlin". I could alternatively write his entire name without the wikilink.--GDuwenHoller!19:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)reply
I was citing the Blu-ray disc directly. I did again commit the distracting mistake of adding the Amazon locator. I replaced it with the catalog number of the Paramount Home media release.--GDuwenHoller!21:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Names like "Pacino", "Lumet", "Salt and Wexler", and "Theodorakis" should be in full every time they're used. Fixed
The Directors Guild of America Award nomination isn't mentioned in this
reference.
Not directly, but it is there. The website's design is a bit odd. You get to see it only if you click "Winners and Nominees". By default, you are shown "Winners". There seems to be no direct way to link it as far as I can see.--GDuwenHoller!20:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Other
Images
"Pacino as Frank Serpico, in a publicity portrait" → "Pacino as Frank Serpico in a publicity portrait" Fixed
Actually, try linking all websites/publishers/newspapers in all citations. Done (where possible)
Don't add "[company] staff" into author parameters. If there's no attributed author, don't add anything.Not done
Archive all archivable sources (I recommend signing up and using this
free tool).
Thanks for the tool, nice to have such resources! it was a pain to do it one by one. When it comes to the "staff" in the author parameters, I need it for the footnote system of the Harvard references. The author parameter, year of publication and page (if we are talking about a book, newspaper or magazine) are required. If an author is missing, the link on the shorted footnote would fail to point to the source at the bottom.--GDuwenHoller!20:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Overview
GAN table
GA review (see
here for what the criteria are, and
here for what they are not)
@
GDuwen: Well, I just finished adding my notes at #References. Don't forget to look at my reply at #Premiere_reception and to do the only suggestion at #Production. After doing so, ping me, and if I don't see any more problems, this article will be passed. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk?19:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Some Dude From North Carolina: Yea, I can do it manually in case it doesn't work. But the main thing is that every single page is archived in the Wayback Machine. If for some reason the links go dead, wikibots are able to replace them without intervention. I'm not really a heavy tool user, but I've seen that the ones I archived manually in the past were replaced without me taking any particular action.--GDuwenHoller!21:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
this nomination's talk page,
the article's talk page or
Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
... that Serpico was filmed in inverse order, and that
Al Pacino(pictured) had to be shaved as the shooting progressed? pp.30-31 of Sharples, Win Jr. (February 1974). "The Filming of Serpico". Filmmakers Newsletter. 7 (4) (seen in
this link, scroll down to find the publication); p. 160 Spiegel, Maura (2019). Sidney Lumet: A Life. St. Martin's Publishing Group.
ISBN978-1-250-03014-6.
ALT1:... that during the production of Serpico(
Al Pacino pictured as
Frank Serpico) winter conditions had to be simulated as it was filmed during the summer of 1972? p. 31 of Sharples, Win Jr. (February 1974). "The Filming of Serpico". Filmmakers Newsletter. 7 (4) (seen in
this link, scroll down to find the publication)
ALT2:... that the production team of Serpico(
Al Pacino pictured as
Frank Serpico) had difficulty to find locations with walls free of graffiti for the scenes set in the 1960s?
The article looks excellent and was recently promoted to GA (congrats!). All of the hooks look good and are adequately sourced here and within the article. I think the first one goes quite well with the image provided. QPQ has been done. Good work. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️05:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Good observation. I suppose that would be because the movie probably obscured the original success of the book and its existence got reduced to just be the source from which the film was adapted (as it happened to a bunch of other works). There's always room for improvement in Wikipedia!--GDuwenHoller!18:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)reply