Talk:The Irishman/GA1
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Lizzy150 (talk · contribs) 11:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello! I'll be reviewing this article which you've nominated for GA. So far, it's looking good and all the editors have done a great job! Just Lizzy(talk) 11:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
General feedback
- Article is reasonably well written. There's a few copyedits and word changes that I'll make myself later.
- Appears to be sufficient sources. References 38, 53, 73 have not been formatted correctly though.
- Stable - yes
- Illustrated - yes
- Neutral / Broad - mostly yes, as long as proposed changes below are met
I'm going to jump straight to the following sections..
Production design
- This paragraph is pretty much just two quotes from Variety, so perhaps just write it in your own words? For example: "Filming last 108 days, in 117 different locations and up to 160 actors..." - and then just add the source at the end.
- Same goes for the second quote by the producer. You should also write [Assistant Director] and [Director of Photography] next to AD and DP.
- Perhaps merge this section with the costume design section, as they're quite short?
Costume design
- As mentioned, try to merge this section with the above, or even with the Filming section, because "250 characters and 6,500 extras" isn't really related about costume design.
Filming
- "A posture coach was brought on set to offer tips" - perhaps rephrase that to: "A posture coach was hired to instruct De Niro..."
- The last paragraph - I'd be inclined to remove this part: "Ben Sherlock, writing for Screen Rant, reports that" - and just dive straight into the facts. "Scorsese envisioned the film as having an "old-fashioned" look."
Editing
- This is also another short section, try merging it.
- "Bill Desowitz, writing for IndieWire, stated that..." - this sentence just praises the editing without offering much substance. I'd remove that.
- Partially done. I think the last part "...slamming the titles in front of the audience (describing how various mob characters die) was a way of showing that being part of the Mafia is not a good idea" merits inclusion giving how often this happened throughout the film. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Visual effects
- "Nicholas Rapold, writing for Film Comment, gave the de-aging CGI approach used in the filming a mixed assessment.." - this is a review of the visual effects and shouldn't be here
- "was further made evident during the award season" - try to avoid talking about awards here
- The quote ""Once again technology caught up.." - you might be able to put that in your own words
Financing and budget
- Do you think this section should be higher up in the Production section, eg. below Development?
Industry response
- I'd be tempted to merge this with the critical response section
Thanks for the quick turnaround - here's my final comments:
Writing section
- "Chip Fleischer, the publisher of the book, wrote a detailed reply" - does that mean Fleischer defended/upheld his book? I'm not sure if "detailed reply" gives us that info. In fact, that whole sentence might need to be split just to make it easier to uderstand.
Filming
- "accomplished by using "a series of lookup tables" for each scene" - what is a series of lookup tables?
Thanks, Just Lizzy(talk) 11:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Great, I've made a couple of edits just to avoid repetition in the filming section. I've done a little reshuffle in the critical response section, and reduced the amount of over-linking to wiki articles. If you have any objections, then feel free to let me know. Otherwise we're good to go! Thanks for your work. Just Lizzy(talk) 14:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)