Talk:The Usual Suspects/GA1

GA Review

Hi, I will be reviewing this article. After reading through it a couple of times, I am very impressed with the article. I will be adding any necessary comments. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Just a little confusion under Origins. Are you saying that at the 1993 Sundance Festival the reporters asked McQuarrie what the film was about?

I clarified this sentence so that it should read that they asked McQuarrie what his and Singer's next film would be.--J.D. (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• "However, the money fell through and Singer used the script and the cast to attract Polygram to pick up the negative." I don't understand this sentence. The negative of the film, the negative meaning deficit?

Negative of the film. I've clarified this.--J.D. (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Whose voice was the overlapping voiceover montage? (Just curious as I cannot remember.)

It was actually a montage of key dialogue by various characters. I've corrected this.--J.D. (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• "In the present, Verbal tells Kujan the story of Keyser Söze." Is the preceding not in the present?

No. The preceding bit was a flashback. The story that Verbal is telling.--J.D. (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think you have done an admirable job of summarizing the complex plot. However, I was comparing it with Reservoir Dogs and I wonder if you could orient the reader a little more as is done in Reservoir Dogs. I know it is tricky.

Hmm... Yeah, I read the Dogs one and that is quite well done. I don't suppose you could tell me what you found disorienting in The Usual Suspects plot summary? I'll take another pass at it at any rate and see what I can do.--J.D. (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I find the introduction helpful before the opening credits, which are then identified. Also, Rservoir Dogs identifies flashback as such but without ruining the story. I realize The Usual Suspects may be a bit more complicated, as I had to see the movie more than once to figure out what was going on. In fact, I saw it again a few nights ago, but still had to ask you about the voice montage.

I've clarified a bit more which are flashbacks and what is taking place in the present. I really couldn't do the introduction thing a la the Reservoir Dogs summary as The Usual Suspects isn't structured that way. There is an intro of sorts in the next paragraph. I think that the summary is a bit more coherent than before.--J.D. (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): 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, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

—Mattisse (Talk) 19:48, 31 August 2008