Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jburlinson ( talk · contribs) 17:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC) reply

I'll be glad to review this article for GA status. I'm sorry the nominator has had to wait so long. It should take me no more than 7 days to complete, hopefully I can get it done quicker. I might make some minor changes as I go along (e.g. typos, minor grammar, minor wording), but if anyone objects to these revisions, don't hesitate to revert or to let me know about your concerns. Thanks to all who have contributed to the article. Please let me know if you have any comments or questions.-- Jburlinson ( talk) 17:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC) reply

I for sure did wait a long time, but it's perfectly fine as long as it's reviewed eventually. Thanks for taking on the review. I'm not currently home, but will soon be and will take an active part in the review then. Jonas Vinther ( speak to me!) 18:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Sorry it took me longer than I hoped for this review. I blame Thanksgiving -- and also an ear infection that laid me low for a few days. I'v made a few minor changes to the article (punctuation, typos, spelling, minor wording). Please take a look and revert any that you feel are objectionable; or let me know if you have any comments. Should finish the initial review tomorrow. Thanks for your patience.-- Jburlinson ( talk) 02:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Here's my preliminary review. Please take a look and let me know if you have questions or comments. I'll keep the review open for a while to see if there are any responses. Thanks.-- Jburlinson ( talk) 22:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)-- Jburlinson ( talk) 22:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC) reply

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.	Minor changes have been made for spelling, typos, punctuation & wording. Spot checking reveals no problems with copyright violations.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead states that the movie bears little resemblance to the book, but this is not mentioned in the body of the article and there is no source provided to support this statement. It might be best to amplify on this in the article, providing appropriate references.  Done Statement about differences has been removed. Lead states that there were highly positive reviews, yet none are mentioned in the article itself.
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.	As was mentioned in the earlier GA review in April, there are still some issues relating to the substantiality of the article. Here are a few observations: There are almost no references to early reviews of the film, either domestically or internationally -- the only one I can see is to "Canada Magazine" along with a quote from an executive from MPA. The NYT review is cited as a source, but there's no mention of the substance of the review: "a superb adventure story and easily the liveliest film in town." Also, there must have been other reviews in the press at the time that would be good to identify. For example, there was a rave in "Boy's Life" in 1935. Although there is reference to Hitler's enthusiasm for the film, there has been recent commentary on the impact of this film in Nazi Germany, where it was viewed as a "tendenzfilm", a film exhibiting strong national socialist ideology. There is a lengthy discussion of this in the recent book "The Collaboration" by Ben Urwand, published by Harvard University Press. There is some additional information about the differences between the book and the film in "History in Movies Hollywood Style" by John Howard Reid. There's some possibly worthwhile discussion of the film's anglo-american chivalric code in "Projecting Empire: Imperialism and Popular Cinema" by James Chapman, Nicholas J. Cull. There's a chapter on the film in a book on Henry Hathaway, published by Scarecrow Press. There is also material about the impact of the film on Gary Cooper's persona and career in some of his biographies, like "Gary Cooper" by David Thomson and "Gary Cooper: American Hero" by Jeffrey Meyers. There's a fair amount of retrospective critical response to the film, some of which is listed at Rotten Tomatoes. Also, the Leonard Maltin had a mini-review in his big book. A section on "home media" would be helpful -- it's been issued on VHS and DVD and is included in a couple of multi-film collections.  Done
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	I'm not sure why there are 3 "see also" links to other films directed by Hathaway. It's not clear how these relate specifically to Lives.
	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.
	fail. .	I'll keep the review open pending response & discussion about the points raised above. Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this article. It contains some interesting material and is an asset to the film project on WP. I just feel that there's more that needs to be added before it gets to GA status. The nominator plans on revising the article, so it seems best to hold off on GA status until the changes are made. Many thanks to the nominator and other editors who are working to improve the quality level of wp articles on film.-- Jburlinson ( talk) 22:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments

Jburlinson, thank you for the review. No need to apologize for the wait time. If it were me, I would also have prioritized the holidays. :) Regarding the review, I was unable to find a source to support the claim "which bears little resemblance to Yeats-Brown's memoir" so I have removed it. About the highly positive reviews which is not mentioned in the body text of the article, I have include a "Professional ratings" table underneath the infobox that shows the reviews of Allmovie, Rotten Tomatoes, Turner Classic Movies, New York Times, and Netflix, which are all sourced. You said that there were virtually no reviews from the time of its release, but the NYT source is actually dated January 12, 1935. I can imagine there were plenty reviews, but the movie is extremely old so It's not possible to find all of them. Wonderful job in mentioning Ben Urwand and his book; I have added a lot of text about it's overall impact in Germany. I'm unable to find the piece on the movie by Scarecrow Press anywhere, so not going to be able to implement it — however, with Urwand's newly added content, I'm sure there's enough about the films response. Including a part about the impact of the film on Gary Cooper's persona would strike me as somewhat WP:OFFTOPIC. Very good idea on the Home Media section; I have included that. Regarding the relevance of the three films in the "See also" section, they are films directed by Hathaway in the same decade, so I consider them to be relevant. Jonas Vinther ( speak to me!) 16:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your response. I appreciate your adding material on home media -- it seems to be something of a standard for GA film articles. I'm sure it's difficult finding vintage reviews of a film of this period, but the article would be stronger if there were more. I mentioned the "Boy's Life" review, and there was also a review in "Variety" that mentioned footage created by Ernest Schoedsack some four years before the film was officially produced. The NYT article was written at the time, but the WP article doesn't really discuss the critical reaction expressed in the review. The Henry Hathaway book contains a lot of information about the making of Lives; not including this material leaves a lot of interesting stuff out. I don't think the differences between the book and film are unimportant, and they are discussed in the John Howard Reid book "History in Movies Hollywood Style".

In short, whereas the article has many good things as it now stands, there is still considerable information that is available about this film that is not addressed in the article. This, in my opinion, holds it back from GA status. I'd like to see the article expanded to ensure that it meets attribute 3 of the GA guideline, "Broad in its coverage -- 3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic." I don't mind giving this a shot myself, but I'll have to wait until after the new year. If I do get more involved in contributing to the article, I'd probably have to bow out of the GA reviewer role, though. Again, thanks for your work on this article and for wanting to improve Wikipedia articles on films.-- Jburlinson ( talk) 23:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Jburlinson, I will take notes of what you replied and continue to work on the article. I'll whisper you when I'm done. Jonas Vinther ( speak to me!) 13:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC) reply

OK. Thanks. I'll put the review in "on hold" status for a week. I hope that'll give you the time you need. If not, we can always revisit a GA at a later time. I appreciate your time and effort.-- Jburlinson ( talk) 17:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC) reply