The Wild Bunch has been listed as one of the
Media and drama good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: May 23, 2013. ( Reviewed version). |
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
If someone could clarify the runtimes of the various versions in the info box -- they're deeply confusing at present. 202.168.10.176 03:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure the film doesn't take place in 1913- the Machine Gun featured in the finale is a Browning M1917, not introduced until 1917. Seeing as most of the rest of the film is surprisingly accurate (down to the correct markings on the rifle crates!), and one of the characters makes mention of aeroplanes- "They're gonna use them in the war", which the US didn't enter until late 1917- it would stand to reason that this is when the film is set. -- Commander Zulu 13:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The film takes place in 1913, referencing several books written on Sam Peckinpah and the "Wild Bunch" film. The use of the machine gun in the film was most likely historically inaccurate, though this point has never been critiqued and is not really considered a flaw in the film. I deleted the information related to the guns used in the film as this is original information that has never been written about. If there is an article or book that points this out, it would be great to reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriskent2002 ( talk • contribs) 10:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, anachronistic guns subtract from films--like John Wayne using an 1892 Winchester in 1866. No matter who says it was supposed to be 1913; it had to be 1914-1915 from historical references. And, even though the U.S. didn't enter the war until 1917; we all knew of the war in Europe, starting in 1914. "They're gonna use 'em in the War" didn't necessarily mean just the US. Also, the mention of: "..go back to Yuma" was impossible. Sam needs to read his history. Yuma Territorial was shut-down in 1906. After Arizona's statehood in 1912, Florence became the central prison. Sergio Leone tries to be accurate, it only costs "a few dollars more"... 68.231.185.24 ( talk) 21:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I first saw this movie in about 1969 or 1970 in Cape Town. The opening scenes were somewhat different (in my memory) from the scenes that one sees today on a DVD hired from the local video store. In the old version I saw, the "Salvation Army band" is shot to pieces in vivid and shocking detail. Can anybody explain this? Was there more than one version of the original movie? Captainbeefart 13:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, I haven't seen the dvd but the Sally Army band was most definitely shot up. Twobells ( talk) 13:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
They were the "South Texas Temperance Union" (no where did it say: "Salvation Army"); and every version I have seen was them caught in the crossfire..the children burning a scorpion on an ant hill--symbolism? The dying bird, later? 68.231.185.24 ( talk) 21:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi everyone, the "Motifs" and the "Themes" sections, while well-written and providing commentary and analysis that I agree with, certainly seems like the product of original research. While there is always the temptation for movies we love to just go ahead and write about them, Wikipedia is not the place for essays or personal analysis. What is needed in this section are referenced quotes from established film critics about this film. Considering its acknowledged greatness, this should be not too hard. Lipsticked Pig 00:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The "Themes" had some terrific stuff, though most of it was original work. Much of it could be referenced in critiques, though not all of it. I deleted most of it, and left the themes that are generally common knowledge. I plan of referencing them. Chriskent2002 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriskent2002 ( talk • contribs) 10:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The link here leads to an athlete who was born after the movie was made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.118.60.174 ( talk) 15:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Wild Bunch is on the AFI Top 100 list, I forget where it falls, though. I remember in the AFI tv special that covers the 100 films, somebody says Wild Bunch is really the first movie to actually show realistic blood/blood effects. (The MPAA ratings system had been created the previous year.) Anybody else remember this? I can't remember who said it, or the exact wording. It would be good to add to the article if we could find out who/what. -- 24.21.149.124 ( talk) 01:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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)
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.
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. | ||
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). | ||
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. | ||
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 |
I noted: "..the machine gun" late in synopsis was not referenced previously. I added a parenthesized inventory earlier in the text. 184.99.188.176 ( talk) 14:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on The Wild Bunch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Wild Bunch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I am removing the following line from the article: "Mario Adorf was considered for the part of Mapache, but the role went to Emilio Fernández, the Mexican film director and actor and friend of Peckinpah". I can find no supporting reference. If someone can find and cite the Adorf assertion, please add it back. ~ Alcmaeonid ( talk) 22:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
User:TheOldJacobite Sir, I do not appreciate your referencing my action as "Not an improvement". Ask somebody who reads the litigious paragraph for the first time what they gather from the previous wording, as compared to my edit. I am sure there must have been some mistake, so I reverted back to yesterday's wording of said paragraph. Goodbye. - 80.12.39.253 ( talk) 20:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC) Previously logged in as: User:80.12.43.208
In the plot summary this statement is not supported by a reliable source and you can simply watch this part of the movie to confirm it did not happen:
"Thornton finally catches up, and is delighted to find his rivals dead"
That statement is a literal rewrite of the ending. Thornton showed NO delight or similar feelings when he found Pike's gang dead. It should be removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8081:8740:D24:3D64:1825:124F:F46 ( talk) 21:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
The Wild Bunch has been listed as one of the
Media and drama good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: May 23, 2013. ( Reviewed version). |
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
If someone could clarify the runtimes of the various versions in the info box -- they're deeply confusing at present. 202.168.10.176 03:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure the film doesn't take place in 1913- the Machine Gun featured in the finale is a Browning M1917, not introduced until 1917. Seeing as most of the rest of the film is surprisingly accurate (down to the correct markings on the rifle crates!), and one of the characters makes mention of aeroplanes- "They're gonna use them in the war", which the US didn't enter until late 1917- it would stand to reason that this is when the film is set. -- Commander Zulu 13:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The film takes place in 1913, referencing several books written on Sam Peckinpah and the "Wild Bunch" film. The use of the machine gun in the film was most likely historically inaccurate, though this point has never been critiqued and is not really considered a flaw in the film. I deleted the information related to the guns used in the film as this is original information that has never been written about. If there is an article or book that points this out, it would be great to reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriskent2002 ( talk • contribs) 10:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, anachronistic guns subtract from films--like John Wayne using an 1892 Winchester in 1866. No matter who says it was supposed to be 1913; it had to be 1914-1915 from historical references. And, even though the U.S. didn't enter the war until 1917; we all knew of the war in Europe, starting in 1914. "They're gonna use 'em in the War" didn't necessarily mean just the US. Also, the mention of: "..go back to Yuma" was impossible. Sam needs to read his history. Yuma Territorial was shut-down in 1906. After Arizona's statehood in 1912, Florence became the central prison. Sergio Leone tries to be accurate, it only costs "a few dollars more"... 68.231.185.24 ( talk) 21:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I first saw this movie in about 1969 or 1970 in Cape Town. The opening scenes were somewhat different (in my memory) from the scenes that one sees today on a DVD hired from the local video store. In the old version I saw, the "Salvation Army band" is shot to pieces in vivid and shocking detail. Can anybody explain this? Was there more than one version of the original movie? Captainbeefart 13:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, I haven't seen the dvd but the Sally Army band was most definitely shot up. Twobells ( talk) 13:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
They were the "South Texas Temperance Union" (no where did it say: "Salvation Army"); and every version I have seen was them caught in the crossfire..the children burning a scorpion on an ant hill--symbolism? The dying bird, later? 68.231.185.24 ( talk) 21:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi everyone, the "Motifs" and the "Themes" sections, while well-written and providing commentary and analysis that I agree with, certainly seems like the product of original research. While there is always the temptation for movies we love to just go ahead and write about them, Wikipedia is not the place for essays or personal analysis. What is needed in this section are referenced quotes from established film critics about this film. Considering its acknowledged greatness, this should be not too hard. Lipsticked Pig 00:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The "Themes" had some terrific stuff, though most of it was original work. Much of it could be referenced in critiques, though not all of it. I deleted most of it, and left the themes that are generally common knowledge. I plan of referencing them. Chriskent2002 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriskent2002 ( talk • contribs) 10:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The link here leads to an athlete who was born after the movie was made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.118.60.174 ( talk) 15:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Wild Bunch is on the AFI Top 100 list, I forget where it falls, though. I remember in the AFI tv special that covers the 100 films, somebody says Wild Bunch is really the first movie to actually show realistic blood/blood effects. (The MPAA ratings system had been created the previous year.) Anybody else remember this? I can't remember who said it, or the exact wording. It would be good to add to the article if we could find out who/what. -- 24.21.149.124 ( talk) 01:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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)
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.
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. | ||
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). | ||
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. | ||
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 |
I noted: "..the machine gun" late in synopsis was not referenced previously. I added a parenthesized inventory earlier in the text. 184.99.188.176 ( talk) 14:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on The Wild Bunch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Wild Bunch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I am removing the following line from the article: "Mario Adorf was considered for the part of Mapache, but the role went to Emilio Fernández, the Mexican film director and actor and friend of Peckinpah". I can find no supporting reference. If someone can find and cite the Adorf assertion, please add it back. ~ Alcmaeonid ( talk) 22:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
User:TheOldJacobite Sir, I do not appreciate your referencing my action as "Not an improvement". Ask somebody who reads the litigious paragraph for the first time what they gather from the previous wording, as compared to my edit. I am sure there must have been some mistake, so I reverted back to yesterday's wording of said paragraph. Goodbye. - 80.12.39.253 ( talk) 20:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC) Previously logged in as: User:80.12.43.208
In the plot summary this statement is not supported by a reliable source and you can simply watch this part of the movie to confirm it did not happen:
"Thornton finally catches up, and is delighted to find his rivals dead"
That statement is a literal rewrite of the ending. Thornton showed NO delight or similar feelings when he found Pike's gang dead. It should be removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8081:8740:D24:3D64:1825:124F:F46 ( talk) 21:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)