Talk:A Simple Plan (film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BenLinus1214 (talk · contribs) 01:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll take this. :) Might be a few days, but I will. BenLinus1214^talk 01:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@FrankRizzo2006:Comments

• Why is note a necessary? Either list those production companies, or remove the note, in my opinion. Unless you can give me a reason to keep it.
• I can't do a lot now, but the plot summary is at the very high end of the guidelines as notated by WP:FILMPLOT. Nevertheless, I think it could really be tightened up and cut down because there are a lot of descriptions of individual conversations that are not really that notable or could be skimmed more quickly.
• Can you give me a reason why note c is important? It kind of reads like WP:TRIVIA.
• The "Combustible Celluloid" reference is a dead link.
• Is there any more information on casting? There's a little bit, but is that all you could find?
• In my opinion, the Production section could use a few images. I added a double image in the background, but maybe one for filming as well? This is just a suggestion--not completely necessary! :)
• "Raimi's hiring..." currently a bit informal—also, should probably put the more important information first. Possibly "Raimi did not have time to scout locations due to studio constraints…"
• Star Tribune ref is broken. For broken links, I would suggest typing the urls into an archive service like the Wayback Machine, they usually have them.
• "Savoy Pictures received screen credit" Source?
• I'll verify the writing section later because most of it is sourced to the Combustible Celluloid or Star Tribune refs, but other than that it looks good.
• You skip to the Minnesota Film Board thing rather quickly without any prior reference to them—maybe, "After Mike Nichols suggested that the story be set in the state, the Minnesota Film Board joined the project and remained with it throughout principal photography." (of course, only if those tweaks are what it says in the source—I can't see it because it's the star tribune one)
• "Filming began in Ashland, Wisconsin…" repetition of "shot"
• "The production team then returned to Minnesota" informal use of "plagued".
• The ref cited doest mention the stuff done in the "snow unit" sentence, so I've tagged it. Also, the sentence itself is very confusing.
• We don't need the Hank (Paxton) parenthetical.
• The part about it being filmed at Energy Park Studios is not in the source.
• In the cinematography section, Raimi's thoughts on the cinematography are interesting—perhaps you could incorporate some of his words into the body of the section.
• It looks like you could add more to the cinematography section by utilizing the International Cinematographers Guild reference.
• The title of "music and soundtrack" is a bit redundant—I would say to just choose one or the other. Other than that, this section looks good.
• "before opening wide" is a bit jargony—maybe "before opening in a wide release"
• The TIFF Berardinelli source is dead.
• I might put both Berardelli reviews in the same place because it seems awkward to refer to him and then go back later.
• The TIME isn't dead per se, but it doesn't link to a review.
• I would put the Golden Globe award nom in the main paragraph. Also, I would add the listing as one of the top 10 films of 1998 to the accolades list—other films list being on the similar list published by AFI as an award.
• The "DigitallyObsessed.com" link is down—it goes to what is essentially a blank page. Also, why is this a reliable source?

So User:FrankRizzo2006, basically, some link rot and sourcing clear-up stuff. BenLinus1214^talk 15:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

User:FrankRizzo2006, I see that you've done a lot of editing to the article based on comments per my review. Could you possibly update on this page what you've done? Thanks. BenLinus1214^talk 10:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Edits made

• Why is note a necessary? Either list those production companies, or remove the note, in my opinion. Unless you can give me a reason to keep it.
  • Removed a few of the notes.
• The "Combustible Celluloid" reference is a dead link.
  • Fixed the dead link to the "Combustible Celluloid" reference.
• "Raimi's hiring..." currently a bit informal—also, should probably put the more important information first. Possibly "Raimi did not have time to scout locations due to studio constraints…"
  • Fixed, as per your suggestion
• Star Tribune ref is broken. For broken links, I would suggest typing the urls into an archive service like the Wayback Machine, they usually have them.
  • Fixed the Star Tribune link, using the Wayback Machine.
• "Savoy Pictures received screen credit" Source?
  • "Savoy Pictures received screen credit" comment removed.
• We don't need the Hank (Paxton) parenthetical.
  • Removed the Hank (Paxton) parenthetical.
• The part about it being filmed at Energy Park Studios is not in the source.
  • Removed.
• Added page number near reference for stuff done in the "snow unit" sentence. I've also edited the sentence as per your suggestion.
• The title of "music and soundtrack" is a bit redundant—I would say to just choose one or the other. Other than that, this section looks good.
  • The title of "music and soundtrack" has been changed to "Music"
• "before opening wide" is a bit jargony—maybe "before opening in a wide release"
  • "before opening wide" has been changed to "before opening in a wide release".
• The TIME isn't dead per se, but it doesn't link to a review.
  • Removed the TIME magazine url in the magazine reference.

BenLinus, it will take a few more days to finish editing the article, and I have taken many of your suggestions into consideration. FrankRizzo (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Thank you! Just let me know when you're finished. BenLinus1214^talk 01:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Awesome! Nice expansions, especially in the cinematography section! It is my great pleasure to pass. Congrats on your fine work! :) BenLinus1214^talk 02:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Thank you very much for your suggestions and contributions, BenLinus; much appreciated! Very happy to have worked on this article, and get it promoted to "Good Article" status! FrankRizzo (talk) 05:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Edits made

BenLinus, I've finished editing the article, using many of your suggestions.

• You skip to the Minnesota Film Board thing rather quickly without any prior reference to them—maybe, "After Mike Nichols suggested that the story be set in the state, the Minnesota Film Board joined the project and remained with it throughout principal photography." (of course, only if those tweaks are what it says in the source—I can't see it because it's the star tribune one)
  • Taken into consideration.
• "Filming began in Ashland, Wisconsin…" repetition of "shot"
  • Edited sentence.
• "The production team then returned to Minnesota" informal use of "plagued".
  • Edited sentence.
• In the cinematography section, Raimi's thoughts on the cinematography are interesting—perhaps you could incorporate some of his words into the body of the section.
  • I moved the following comment to the Cinematography section "Raimi saw A Simple Plan as an opportunity to direct a character-driven story that differed from his earlier works, which were highly stylized or dependent on intricate camera movements."
• It looks like you could add more to the cinematography section by utilizing the International Cinematographers Guild reference.
  • I have expanded on details in the Cinematography section.
• Is there any more information on casting? There's a little bit, but is that all you could find?
  • I've added additional casting details regarding Paxton and Thornton.

Hoping these edits and contributions have helped to improve the article. FrankRizzo (talk) 00:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)