GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Rules of the Game/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ssven2 (talk · contribs) 08:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I will review this article, thank you. Looks good at first glance.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 08:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

Cast

Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Production

Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Release

Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rediscovery

Themes

Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Style

Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Worked on this. Maybe not exactly what you had in mind but I think its improved. Let me know what you think.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 03:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A lot better.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 23:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Issue- so the date listed on the webpage in December 31, 1938. Which is almost a year before the film was released. Now it does appear to be the review from its initial release and "December 31, 1939" may be accurate. I'd be more comfortable just putting "1939".--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's alright.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cutting this out. I added the original Francis Vanoye source which includes all the films listed in the sentence. Someone else added on this source.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC) I was wrong and I fixed it.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Deoliveirafan: Overall, the article looks quite well-written. It was a pleasure to read it.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ssven2:I have fixed or worked on everything on your list. I am not the greatest at rules, but books definitely do not need an access date right? I would be happy to work with you on any more improvements.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Deoliveirafan: Books don't but online references do.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was split into two paragraphs at some point, but it is the same source as the next paragraph.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.
    Pass or Fail:

@Deoliveirafan: Congratulations! Renoir's masterpiece has passed.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 15:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deep focus and moving long shots as “sophisticated” techniques in 1939[edit]

Anyone who has been following the recent rediscovery of the restored riches of the silent film era is likely to do a double-take at this statement and wish for a description beyond “sophisticated,” a subjective term that may suggest “unprecedented.” There is no citation, so there is no article to provide in-depth explanation. As we now know, film makers of the sound era reinvented many tools and techniques of the art that silent era film makers had already used. In fact, some film makers of the sound era have been credited with being the “first”—always a dangerous term—when they were not. One example is the crab dolly, whose invention was long credited to Vincente Minnelli. In fact, James Wong Howe created and used a crab dolly (perhaps it could be described as “the first known crab dolly.”) as early as 1927.

So I would suggest a little more on this subjective term, or at least a usable citation.