Talk:Cog (advertisement)/GA1
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Ktlynch (talk · contribs) 11:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC) Looks interesting, give me a little time to go through it properly. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 11:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Some initial comments:
1. The Sequence section is too long. Admirably detailed description, but synopsis guidelines indicate that articles should just give a bare description neccessary to understand the basic nature of the film. This one, for a two-minute ad, is longer than that for a two hour film.
2. Layout it seems silly to have a sub-section, Production within a higher level section of the same name. Perhaps the sub could be renamed, "Filming" or "Making"
3. In the Pre-production section the claims of inspiration are not supported by reference #2. I can't see anything in that sentence which is. --Ktlynch (talk) 13:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
4. I'm nearly finished copy-editing and reviewing the the article line by line, and think that it more or less meets the standard of a GA, congrulations on all the hard work done. It has adequate structure and coverage, is neutral, and has no problems with stability. It needed a good copy-editing, and cleaning of some words to watch, but I preferred to just do that myself.
5.The article has two images, but are suitable, and the lead image has an appropriate fair use justification. It would be nice to maybe have one more illustration or screenshot. Another frame could be justified, especially with a relevant caption.
- I'm always very iffy about adding in fair use screenshots, especially where there's no pressing need for them. Perhaps a copy of one of the storyboard drawings in the production section, and shift the accord photo to Release. Again, I'll see what I can do. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 19:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
6. I'm just going to do some more reference checks before passing it. Reference #10 has useful comments explaining the copywriter's reaction to the accusations of copying from the film. He also clarifies that the 600 takes figure refers to the four month total production period. There were 70-80 takes during the 5 days of principal photography
- As I'd noted in the archive, every source seems to invent its own figure for the number of takes. The media go with 606, the copywriter says 60-70 over two days, the director says 20 or so a day for five days, and there's an interview with the client floating around that has yet another figure. Given that, I think it's better to be vague and go for the overall number of takes (~600) rather than try to pin down exactly how many were made in filming. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 19:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
7. In the lead section, instead of this passage "The media reaction to the advertisement was equally effusive, with articles appearing in both broadsheets such as The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, and The Guardian and in tabloids such as The Sun and The Daily Mail." an example of the praise or identification of the reasons why they liked it might be better than a list of newspapers which had articles about it
8. For reference,the titles of adverts should be within "Quotation marks", not in Italics. I'll go through the whole article later and make the neccessary changes.
- Category:Television commercials is split on this point, and the only Featured Article of the category, noitulovE, favours italics. It's an incredibly minor detail - I'll not contest the change. :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 19:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
--Ktlynch (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok, congrulations and thank you for all your work, Geejo! We have a Good Article! --Ktlynch (talk) 11:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)