The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: ErnestKrause ( talk · contribs) 14:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Assessment in preparation; it may take a few days. To start things off, the article is approaching 300Kb in total size and have you given any thoughts to possibly trimming some of the text or considering a page split for some of the sections? ErnestKrause ( talk) 14:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
To begin with some framing comments for this very long article which you've started to trim. Its currently at about 250Kb total file size which is somewhat over the two examples which you've given me which are coming in at about 205Kb and 208Kb in size. I'll make some more comments about this later, though I'm taking seriously your reference to your two examples as providing good target sizes for this article as well. My comments below are to be in two parts; the first part is here and I'll follow up with the second part after I see your answers and edits in response. Starting with comments directly below.
(1) I'll be coming back to the lede at the end of this assessment again. For now I'll comment that your research has been extensive and that there might be too much detail shown in the lede since the information is already in the article's main body. A quick example would be your sentence "The book was a bestseller, but Blatty, who also produced...", which could be presented in an alternate form such as "Even though the book was a bestseller, Blatty and Friedkin had difficulty casting the film". This is only example and you can use it or not, however, a shorter lede in total would be to your advantage. Try to let the good research you have done in the main body of the article speak for itself. ErnestKrause ( talk) 14:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
(2) Plot section. I'm not sure I can think of this film without reference to the Islamic call to faith which appears at the very start of the film in Iraq. Could there be a short mention of this intonation which memorably starts the film.
(3) Distinction of the theatrical cut and director's cut is well added here.
(4) Production section. Should this section have a main article link for the book version. The section currently has no Main article link.
(5) In the writing section, it seems like much of this could be moved to the Wikipedia article for the book version. Condensing books and expanding books into film series or television series, or for abridged book presentations, can be discussed, at least in parts, in the book article as to differences between the published version and the adapted versions.
(6) Casting section. I'm wondering if I can think of Max von Sydow as "a less well-known actor", which you call him. He was a major actor by way of Ingmar Bergman, and even calling him a major European actor may not be doing him full justice. Could the wording about the importance of Sydow as a actor in general and in this film be adapted somewhat to reflect him as a major actor.
(7) Top billing in the Casting section. Who is the top star here? I've read the BFI book about the film by MK and I'm not sure that I'm thinking of them in the order you present them. For example, how much of Regan's character is 'acted' and how much of it is FX? Many have commented that it is the demonic spirit depicted inside Regan which animated the audiences attention, and you can sort this out. I've already stated that Sydow, from many viewers standpoint, was the major actor. He is the one depicted in the poster for this film as approaching the house on a starless night.
(8) Supporting roles section. I'm mentioning again, I'm agreeing with many commentators and critics who have spoken of Sydow's centrality to the plot, etc, as more than merely a supporting role.
(9) Blatty and Friedkin became long-term friends if you look at some of the many interviews they have granted over the years sitting side by side; is there more to be said about this aspect. The sections throughout production are on the long side, and size issues for the sections still need to be taken into account.
As an interesting sidenote, I had the occasion to meet Friedkin once, at an event in Syracuse where he was showing Rampage, hoping to get a distributor for it since De Laurentiis Entertainment Group had gone bankrupt after the film was finished, just before its intended release. Near the end of the event I asked him, up close and personal, what he thought about the upcoming Exorcist III adaptation Blatty was directing. He had already made no bones about still hating Exorcist II, and he was just as blunt about III, about which had already been reported that he and Blatty had fallen out over: "It's gonna suck just as bad as Exorcist II!."
It seems that they patched things up, which, of course, is always good to hear. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
(10) One more time. No pictures of Sydow in the entire article (not the poster silhouette)?
For a picture of von Sydow, we would want to use one of the free ones we have on Commons, and try to find one from that general era (sort of an informal rule). This is really the only one we have that fits that bill, and in it he's a) wearing mustache, unlike Father Merrin and b) it's kind of small. Maybe I should see about finding another production still. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
(11) Your research for this article in many of the sections show the level of interest that this film has caused in your reading of the material. That's generally to be a good feature, though I may need to return to length issues again.
(12) Editing section. You state, "In his tweet discussing this...", might look better if framed as to the time it was made. For example, "When, many years later, in his tweet discussing this...".
(13) Jump forward to Music section for this version of my comments. Its very hard for myself to think of this film's music without thinking of Tubular Bells first and foremost. I'm going to suggest you give it a much higher profile in this section than your current approach of including after your introductory material. Your research is all fine, though I sort of feel the section will look more effective if Tubular Bells is discussed right off at the top of this section. As I recall, it even charted at the time the film was released.
(14) Production difficulties section. Its all well researched; just be careful about the line between useful text and anecdotal text concerning size issues with this large article.
(15) Jump ahead to Critical response section. The MK comment at the end should not be isolated, and I think it would look better integrated into the narrative of the other paragraphs in this section.
(16) Religious response section. I recalling that there was a significant distinction at the time the film was released between the Catholic response to the film and the Protestant response to the film. Was this evident in the RS which you looked at? RC church responses seemed to be more inclined to have a stronger response to the metaphysical and spiritual aspects of this film, though you should correct me if you think otherwise based on the RS which you have seen.
(17) Since release section might be titled as "After release" or "Post release" as options.
(18) Jump forward to Prequels and sequels. I'm thinking that much of this could be moved to the franchise page already existing on Wikipedia. The article you have here is already plenty long, and this reading within this section might be more appreciated on the franchise page for these films.
That should get things started for phase one of this assessment. Let me know when the article is ready for the next set of comments. ErnestKrause ( talk) 14:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: ErnestKrause ( talk · contribs) 14:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Assessment in preparation; it may take a few days. To start things off, the article is approaching 300Kb in total size and have you given any thoughts to possibly trimming some of the text or considering a page split for some of the sections? ErnestKrause ( talk) 14:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
To begin with some framing comments for this very long article which you've started to trim. Its currently at about 250Kb total file size which is somewhat over the two examples which you've given me which are coming in at about 205Kb and 208Kb in size. I'll make some more comments about this later, though I'm taking seriously your reference to your two examples as providing good target sizes for this article as well. My comments below are to be in two parts; the first part is here and I'll follow up with the second part after I see your answers and edits in response. Starting with comments directly below.
(1) I'll be coming back to the lede at the end of this assessment again. For now I'll comment that your research has been extensive and that there might be too much detail shown in the lede since the information is already in the article's main body. A quick example would be your sentence "The book was a bestseller, but Blatty, who also produced...", which could be presented in an alternate form such as "Even though the book was a bestseller, Blatty and Friedkin had difficulty casting the film". This is only example and you can use it or not, however, a shorter lede in total would be to your advantage. Try to let the good research you have done in the main body of the article speak for itself. ErnestKrause ( talk) 14:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
(2) Plot section. I'm not sure I can think of this film without reference to the Islamic call to faith which appears at the very start of the film in Iraq. Could there be a short mention of this intonation which memorably starts the film.
(3) Distinction of the theatrical cut and director's cut is well added here.
(4) Production section. Should this section have a main article link for the book version. The section currently has no Main article link.
(5) In the writing section, it seems like much of this could be moved to the Wikipedia article for the book version. Condensing books and expanding books into film series or television series, or for abridged book presentations, can be discussed, at least in parts, in the book article as to differences between the published version and the adapted versions.
(6) Casting section. I'm wondering if I can think of Max von Sydow as "a less well-known actor", which you call him. He was a major actor by way of Ingmar Bergman, and even calling him a major European actor may not be doing him full justice. Could the wording about the importance of Sydow as a actor in general and in this film be adapted somewhat to reflect him as a major actor.
(7) Top billing in the Casting section. Who is the top star here? I've read the BFI book about the film by MK and I'm not sure that I'm thinking of them in the order you present them. For example, how much of Regan's character is 'acted' and how much of it is FX? Many have commented that it is the demonic spirit depicted inside Regan which animated the audiences attention, and you can sort this out. I've already stated that Sydow, from many viewers standpoint, was the major actor. He is the one depicted in the poster for this film as approaching the house on a starless night.
(8) Supporting roles section. I'm mentioning again, I'm agreeing with many commentators and critics who have spoken of Sydow's centrality to the plot, etc, as more than merely a supporting role.
(9) Blatty and Friedkin became long-term friends if you look at some of the many interviews they have granted over the years sitting side by side; is there more to be said about this aspect. The sections throughout production are on the long side, and size issues for the sections still need to be taken into account.
As an interesting sidenote, I had the occasion to meet Friedkin once, at an event in Syracuse where he was showing Rampage, hoping to get a distributor for it since De Laurentiis Entertainment Group had gone bankrupt after the film was finished, just before its intended release. Near the end of the event I asked him, up close and personal, what he thought about the upcoming Exorcist III adaptation Blatty was directing. He had already made no bones about still hating Exorcist II, and he was just as blunt about III, about which had already been reported that he and Blatty had fallen out over: "It's gonna suck just as bad as Exorcist II!."
It seems that they patched things up, which, of course, is always good to hear. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
(10) One more time. No pictures of Sydow in the entire article (not the poster silhouette)?
For a picture of von Sydow, we would want to use one of the free ones we have on Commons, and try to find one from that general era (sort of an informal rule). This is really the only one we have that fits that bill, and in it he's a) wearing mustache, unlike Father Merrin and b) it's kind of small. Maybe I should see about finding another production still. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
(11) Your research for this article in many of the sections show the level of interest that this film has caused in your reading of the material. That's generally to be a good feature, though I may need to return to length issues again.
(12) Editing section. You state, "In his tweet discussing this...", might look better if framed as to the time it was made. For example, "When, many years later, in his tweet discussing this...".
(13) Jump forward to Music section for this version of my comments. Its very hard for myself to think of this film's music without thinking of Tubular Bells first and foremost. I'm going to suggest you give it a much higher profile in this section than your current approach of including after your introductory material. Your research is all fine, though I sort of feel the section will look more effective if Tubular Bells is discussed right off at the top of this section. As I recall, it even charted at the time the film was released.
(14) Production difficulties section. Its all well researched; just be careful about the line between useful text and anecdotal text concerning size issues with this large article.
(15) Jump ahead to Critical response section. The MK comment at the end should not be isolated, and I think it would look better integrated into the narrative of the other paragraphs in this section.
(16) Religious response section. I recalling that there was a significant distinction at the time the film was released between the Catholic response to the film and the Protestant response to the film. Was this evident in the RS which you looked at? RC church responses seemed to be more inclined to have a stronger response to the metaphysical and spiritual aspects of this film, though you should correct me if you think otherwise based on the RS which you have seen.
(17) Since release section might be titled as "After release" or "Post release" as options.
(18) Jump forward to Prequels and sequels. I'm thinking that much of this could be moved to the franchise page already existing on Wikipedia. The article you have here is already plenty long, and this reading within this section might be more appreciated on the franchise page for these films.
That should get things started for phase one of this assessment. Let me know when the article is ready for the next set of comments. ErnestKrause ( talk) 14:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)