Talk:The Wanderers (1979 film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BenLinus1214 (talk · contribs) 23:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Currently third on my "to review" list, after "Mr. Monk Gets a New Shrink" and Kayla Mueller. BenLinus 1214^talk 23:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC) @Metal121: There appear to be a good number of issues in the article, particularly with sourcing and scope. I think that you might be able to fix the issues in time, and I can give you ten days if you want. Also, if you want even a few months to work on it, I can fail it for now and you can renominate in the future. Just let me know what you want to do! Sorry for using an article that I've expanded extensively, but Boys Don't Cry is a good example page. Of course, it doesn't have to be that comprehensive (I'm preparing it for FAC), but some more detail in some areas would be nice. Anyways, let's get this started:[reply]

Infobox

Any information on the film's budget?

Lead

You shouldn't say "late" wife because she didn't die until 2009. This makes it sound like the film was released posthumously.
There should probably be more production details in the lead.

Why is ref 2 reliable? It doesn't appear to be a direct interview, so why do you trust the quotes it's using?
The third paragraph of the lead is completely irrelevant. Perhaps this is a remainder of some older version, but it's not stated anywhere else and feels more like trivia than useful information, especially lead-worthy info.

Plot

This plot summary is not as helpful to the reader as it could be. It consists primarily of short sentences that really just follow one moment with another moment with another moment. There's no sense of cohesion and everything feels a bit jumpy. Give this a copyedit.

Cast

The "principal", "secondary", and "supporting" distinctions are too arbitrary, so get rid of them.
The additional roles part could use a cite, especially the uncredited Wayne Knight role.

Gangs

This whole section is not only unnecessary, it appears to all be original research. I would remove it completely--there's nothing salvageable here.

Production

to whom did they pitch the project?
"However, before he could finish the screenplay…" comma instead of semicolon
Why is the Star Wars part relevant?
The part starting with "for example" is definitely OR, as you don't have a source to show a direct connection to The Wanderers.
What problems were encountered in the writing?
I'm sorry to say this, but most of the "Writing" section is also OR, as you are drawing conclusions about differences between the book and film by yourself, not through the observations of published sources. It's not enough to cite the book itself.
Because most of the "casting" section is cited to ref 2, I have great concerns (see above).
"problems occurred during filming" is a vague way to start things off. Use better transitional language.
"but then had the audacity to say" non-neutral

Release

This section really needs to be expanded in a variety of ways. Film festival releases, theatrical releases, etc. should be included up top as well as the box office performance.
There should be a lot more reviews listed. If there are eighteen reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, the majority should be discussed in this section. Doesn't have to be all of them, but it should be at least most.
You need to talk way more about the film's cult status--how does this come through, in what way do fans express their attitudes towards the movie, etc.

Soundtrack

The "includes the songs" part of the track listing should probably be sourced. Also, are there any reviews of the soundtrack?

In popular culture

This is really mistitled and unclear what this section is supposed to be--I think it's trying to be more of a "legacy" section, but you need to flesh this out as well.
I don't think the book is a novel…
Once again, expand on the cult following part of the film's reception/legacy.
The theatrical re-release thing should not be in this section.

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The fact that the "gangs" section is longer than the reception is telling for 3b.

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:

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):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

@Metal121: This is so much better! I can't believe that you made so many changes so quickly. Good for you! On ref 2, is the other link in an archive somewhere? It's okay if not, but I would prefer it. Yes, the critical reception goes below the box office performance. Currently, it is the other way around. I have a fewM more major comments:

The lead. You don't need any of the specific reviews here (i.e. the ones from Variety and The New York Times). Also, I don't think you need that last sentence.
OR conerns My two OR concerns that I voiced in my original set of comments still apply.
Go through my comments and make sure you have addressed all of them. There are still a few noticeable things that you have not fixed or responded to.

Once again, it's amazing that you fixed this stuff so quickly--you seem to have a really great work ethic on these kinds of things! It's relatively close to passing. BenLinus 1214^talk 23:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BenLunis1214, I have addressed all of your issues and concerns raised. I feel the article has been greatly improved and was wondering if you could have another look at your GA review. The OR has been removed from the article as requested. Also, I don't believe "ref 2" is archived, but if you look at ref 16 in the reference section, I believe that the information there includes the details of the interview the info in "ref 2" was taken from. As said before, there aren't no links in there to the actual interview, as the website is no longer running itself. Thanks again! I look forward to hearing back from you. -- Metal121 (talk), 00:58, August 08, 2015 (GMT).

@Metal121: I just have one more thing--a few of your reviews don't seem to be significant viewpoints (the Dennis Schwartz and John Greco ones). Because they're not part of a broader reliable source and not notable on their own, why are their reviews included? Other than that, I can pass. Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 00:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BenLunis1214, everything should be fine now! All done. Thanks again. -- Metal121 (talk), 01:33, August 08, 2015 (GMT).

Well done. Pass.

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

@Metal121: By the way, would you consider doing a quid pro quo review at GAN? I have several nominations up currently in the television section, and they don't seem like they're getting picked up. I would really appreciate it! They're all on Veronica Mars episodes. Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 03:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Johanna (aka BenLinus1214) I think that's totally fair. Give me a few hours and I'll start searching through your GA nominations! All the best, Martin. -- Metal121 (talk), 06:35, August 08, 2015 (GMT).