Talk:Deep Blue Sea (1999 film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Slightlymad (talk · contribs) 04:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

This one is mine! Deep Blue Sea is an F-U-N watch and I am elated to give the damn thing a review. SLIGHTLY^mad 04:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Here are a couple of nitpicks after a thorough reading:

• Infobox: The runtime is unsourced. Just repeat the source from Variety to support this.

Added Variety ref

• Lede: Get rid of this clause ...and written by Duncan Kennedy, Donna Powers, and Wayne Powers as these screenwriters don't have their own articles in the main space, thus they are not independently notable.

Done. I added another notable member of the cast list, though.

• Cast: I would just drop this section entirely and add the actors' names beside their roles in the Plot section instead. A bare-bone list this short isn't long enough to justify its own section. See WP:FILMCAST

I personally don't think it's a good idea to mix fictional elements (plot) with real-world material (cast). In my opinion, the plot section should be as simple as possible. Is this really an issue? The guideline does not actually forbid it and some FAs like Boys Don't Cry and The Getaway use this format. --Niwi3 (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Well it was me who brought The Getaway to FA, and the reason I opted adding a cast section was because adding them in the Plot would expand its 694-word length, which violates WP:FILMPLOT in regards to length. And if I were to bring examples of FAs that don't have their cast sections, it'd be Eraserhead and Manhunter, or GAs such as Zombi 2 and Nightcrawler. Since this article does not provide context on the actors (even in a dedicated "Casting" section), integrating the cast into the plot would have been the right thing to do. SLIGHTLY^mad 04:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

While I appreciate your helpful comments and interest in the article, I still think having a cast list is more appropriate because it improves the readability of the plot section a lot. For example, the second paragraph of the plot section introduces 3 characters in its first sentence; if we integrate the cast then that sentence will unnecessarily become longer and more difficult to read. A cast list also offers a better presentation of the film's notable actors and does not force readers to read an entire plot section to know who appears in the film. No guideline actually forbids the use of a bare cast list, and even if they did, common sense must be applied in their interpretation. Also, the development section does provide context on the actors. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• Development:

• Although Warner Bros. (WB) bought the script in late 1994, "WB" is unnecessary.

Removed

• When Renny Harlin was chosen to direct the film, Kennedy's screenplay, which had already been re-written by several writers at WB Does the source name the persons who did the rewrites? Are they uncredited even? Also, I wouldn't shorten Warner Bros. to WB.

Sadly, the source does not specify names

• Filming:

• Most of film was shot at Fox Baja Studios in Rosarito, Mexico, grammar.

Fixed

• Originally, Burrows' character... It's Burrows's

Fixed

• ...disapproved the ending because she was behind the shark experiments and was seen as the film's villain. It's "disapproved of".

Fixed

• As a result, the production team did a one-day reshoot in the Universal Studios tank and did some computer generated work on the sharks to "fix" it. quoting 'fix' is unnecessary and may imply doubt. Either reword or remove quotes.

Replaced it with "changed it"

• Theatrical run: Stephen Sommers' -> Sommers's

Fixed

• Critical response:

• Deep Blue Sea received generally mixed reviews from critics. Supply this with an independent, reliable source instead of citing Metacritic since the site doesn't have a sample of all the reviews.

Supported with Wired ref

• I feel like Roger Ebert's comments is excessively quoted, could you convert that into prose somehow?

Managed to paraphrase the last bit

• Create a "Home media" section for the DVD/Blu-ray release of the movie and support with it reliable sources; it should be placed under the critical response subsection. See MOS:FILM#Home_media for more about what to include.

Added a Home media section under Release, as it fits better there.

I would add the dates and the distributor of the DVD/Blu-ray, as "[A]fter its theatrical release" seems vague. AllMovie has the exact dates—the DVD was released on December 7, 1999 while the Blu-ray was released on October 12, 2010, courtesy of Warner Home Video. Please add. SLIGHTLY^mad 04:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Done

• Kindly double check the prose if it observes proper logical quotation.
• Legacy: these sources—[1][2][3][4]—include the movie as one the best shark movies of all time, something you'd want to be included in this section.

I managed to add a second paragraph using those sources. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Niwi3, these concerns can be fixed in no time. Putting this on hold. SLIGHTLY^mad 12:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Slightlymad: Thank you for your review, really appreciated. I think I have addressed all the issues you brought up. Please let me know if there is anything else that needs to be fixed. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Niwi3, see my replies. I also brought a new concern about the Legacy section. SLIGHTLY^mad 04:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Slightlymad: Thanks for those sources. I expanded both sections and left a comment above about the cast list. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Niwi3: Alright, I managed to fix typos you leave behind, as well as clean the prose for textual flow and logical quotation. One last thing, I think the sequel should be mentioned somewhere in the lede, perhaps as the last sentence of third paragraph. But that can be done right away, so I'm delighted to declare that the article can now attain the much-coveted Good Article status. It is well written, broad, free from plagiarism (except for uses of direct quotes) and OR, doesn't stray from topic, supported with inline citations to otherwise sub-par references, and images have suitable captions and supported with non-free use rationale. Well done! SLIGHTLY^mad 04:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)