Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Good job. These objections shouldn't take long to address...
Intro:
The lead section really does need to identify that this is an American film, as per Wikipedia:FILMPLOT#Lead_section. I know you reverted this change earlier, but I really don't think it's confusing to describe it as an "American 2008 historical thriller film". I think that explains the context just fine, but if you really think it's confusing, I guess you could try American-made or write at the end "filmed by the American studio United Artists" or something like that. Personally, I'm just in favor of simply using the word "American", but either way, we need some mention of it.
Development:
Can you add a bit of context to the first reference to Nathan Alexander? Who is he? A producer? A writer?"The creative team acknowledged the controversy over..." I would prefer the word "ambiguity" to "controversy."
Filming:
"They demanded $11 million in compensation, rejecting a settlement offered by the studio." Was this matter ever resolved? If not, I'd add something like "{{As of|2009}}, the matter has not been resolved." or something like that.
Marketing:
"The trailer was also described as 'dour and ... like it was selling a talky stage play with a cast of old British actors'. This has to be attributed with a name, or at the very least a publication or group, even though it is also cited with a source.- "
The team element was based on market research of focus groups who indicated that they liked Cruise as 'a character leading a group of people toward solving a problem'". This, too, needs a similar attribution.
Theatrical run:
"Despite being above early estimates in its opening weekend, Valkyrie continues to be a financial risk for United Artists, with its performance intended to be closely monitored in ensuing weeks." Can this be updated at this point?"Some German theater owners expect the film to have "long legs" for its theatrical run, based on interest from school groups and other curious moviegoers." This, too, seems a bit dated.c"The premiere of the film has renewed the topic of the German Resistance among the German populace." This seems POV a bit. Can you attribute it to anybody or any group? Like "Historians say..." or "Reviewers say..." or whatever?
-- Hunter Kahn ( talk) 04:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing! I modified the first paragraph of the lead section to mention the American studio. (Not sure if it still reads well... let me know!) I attributed the "dour" trailer description to Variety, and I clarified that the "team element" was drawn from the studio's focus groups. For the latter, let me know if this attribution is acceptable... I was not really sure what you were looking for. I also commented out the antiquated sentences since I don't believe there will be any real follow-up. Also attributed BBC News about reporting the renewal of interest in the German Resistance. I suppose my mentality with attribution is that if reported information is pretty opinionated (like reviews) or contestable (in relation to controversies), I will clearly identify the person. Otherwise, I don't feel that unchallenged statements need that level of specification. Before I forget, the remaining issue is the lawsuit. I do not know what the outcome was, so I hate to have a sentence that is ignorant about the outcome. A solution is to remove it entirely... what do you think? I can poke around to find some answers before we do anything like that. —
Erik (
talk •
contrib)
02:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Leave it as is for now, and try to fix it whenever you can. I wouldn't hold up the GAN for something like that, although it probably would be a problem for a FA nomination.
A good article is:
- Well-written: Prose is good, MOS is good.
- Factually accurate and verifiable: Sources are good, no original research.
- Broad in its coverage: Covers main aspects, no unneeded detail.
- Neutral: Yes.
- Stable: Yes.
- Illustrated, if possible, by images: Yes.
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Good job. These objections shouldn't take long to address...
Intro:
The lead section really does need to identify that this is an American film, as per Wikipedia:FILMPLOT#Lead_section. I know you reverted this change earlier, but I really don't think it's confusing to describe it as an "American 2008 historical thriller film". I think that explains the context just fine, but if you really think it's confusing, I guess you could try American-made or write at the end "filmed by the American studio United Artists" or something like that. Personally, I'm just in favor of simply using the word "American", but either way, we need some mention of it.
Development:
Can you add a bit of context to the first reference to Nathan Alexander? Who is he? A producer? A writer?"The creative team acknowledged the controversy over..." I would prefer the word "ambiguity" to "controversy."
Filming:
"They demanded $11 million in compensation, rejecting a settlement offered by the studio." Was this matter ever resolved? If not, I'd add something like "{{As of|2009}}, the matter has not been resolved." or something like that.
Marketing:
"The trailer was also described as 'dour and ... like it was selling a talky stage play with a cast of old British actors'. This has to be attributed with a name, or at the very least a publication or group, even though it is also cited with a source.- "
The team element was based on market research of focus groups who indicated that they liked Cruise as 'a character leading a group of people toward solving a problem'". This, too, needs a similar attribution.
Theatrical run:
"Despite being above early estimates in its opening weekend, Valkyrie continues to be a financial risk for United Artists, with its performance intended to be closely monitored in ensuing weeks." Can this be updated at this point?"Some German theater owners expect the film to have "long legs" for its theatrical run, based on interest from school groups and other curious moviegoers." This, too, seems a bit dated.c"The premiere of the film has renewed the topic of the German Resistance among the German populace." This seems POV a bit. Can you attribute it to anybody or any group? Like "Historians say..." or "Reviewers say..." or whatever?
-- Hunter Kahn ( talk) 04:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing! I modified the first paragraph of the lead section to mention the American studio. (Not sure if it still reads well... let me know!) I attributed the "dour" trailer description to Variety, and I clarified that the "team element" was drawn from the studio's focus groups. For the latter, let me know if this attribution is acceptable... I was not really sure what you were looking for. I also commented out the antiquated sentences since I don't believe there will be any real follow-up. Also attributed BBC News about reporting the renewal of interest in the German Resistance. I suppose my mentality with attribution is that if reported information is pretty opinionated (like reviews) or contestable (in relation to controversies), I will clearly identify the person. Otherwise, I don't feel that unchallenged statements need that level of specification. Before I forget, the remaining issue is the lawsuit. I do not know what the outcome was, so I hate to have a sentence that is ignorant about the outcome. A solution is to remove it entirely... what do you think? I can poke around to find some answers before we do anything like that. —
Erik (
talk •
contrib)
02:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Leave it as is for now, and try to fix it whenever you can. I wouldn't hold up the GAN for something like that, although it probably would be a problem for a FA nomination.
A good article is:
- Well-written: Prose is good, MOS is good.
- Factually accurate and verifiable: Sources are good, no original research.
- Broad in its coverage: Covers main aspects, no unneeded detail.
- Neutral: Yes.
- Stable: Yes.
- Illustrated, if possible, by images: Yes.