Talk:The Lighthouse (2019 film)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: HumanxAnthro (talk · contribs) 02:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey, look, one of the many films I planned to improve for my Film FA project, and one of the few recently-released films my dad saw last year. Time to review this thing
- Infobox states the gross is "$18.3 million," but the body says something slightly different: "$18.2 million"
- Combined sources to say $18.1–18.3 million.
- Are we sure this movie hasn't pinned to one genre? The "style" section indicates the press has come to a consensus that it isn't categorizable in any genre, and only gets genre categorizations from certain sources, but it only makes this conclusion from four citations. I know this movie garnered way, WAY more than four sources (like all A24 movies do), so if it happens to be most of the other reviews and pieces describe it has a horror film or a thriller film, not representing them give this article a problem of undue weight. I'm suspecting horror is the most agreed upon genre due to its coverage in sources specializing in horror and being directed by a horror film director.
- Contradiction in lead and body. The lead states in began at Nova Scotia, but the filming section doesn't state this, only that it was one of the locations.
Fixed Nova Scotia was the province where filming took place.
- "According to Eggers" Roger or Max? Also, the body doesn't give any attribution to who stated the fact? It just states it started out as an attempt for Max to adapt an Edgar Allan Poe story.
- Fixed Changed it to Robert. The body was changed by DAP389.
- " is bothered by a one-eyed gull", "Winslow is again attacked by the one-eyed gull", so when was he first attacked? Was the sentence with the word "bothered" meant to indicate the first time he was attacked in the movie, because "bothered" and "attacked" are definitely not synonymous.
- Fixed He wasn't really "attacked"; changed to "bothered again".
- What is "the relief ferry"? WP:JARGON like this needs to be linked or clarified.
- Fixed Clarified with "meant to pick up Winslow".
- "Filming took place around the Canadian province of Nova Scotia in Leif Erikson Park in Cape Forchu and inside a hangar at Yarmouth Airport" I suspect commas are missing heres. No one films around a bigger place in a smaller part of that place. That makes no sense.
- Fixed Commas have been added.
- "inspiration - the story" You must use the proper dashes in these cases, not hyphens, per WP:MOSDASH.
- Fixed Removed / paraphrased by DAP389.
- "Panavision" should be linked, and Eastman pipe-linked to Eastman Kodak so that casual readers who may not be familiar with film tech will know where to go. Also link the name of the Eastman film stock to List of motion picture film stocks since it's listed there.
Done
- Make sure film and photography jargon is explained or linked to casual readers, like "aperture to T2.8" and "sensitivity." Look for others in the section.
- Done
- Verifiability issue. I don't think alcoholism is being analyzed as a theme in the two sources cited; the sources only mention the characters drink alcohol only as a detail of the plot, and don't state alcoholism is a legit them in the film. If it's stated as a theme in any other sources, it's not cited in this section.
- Done Removed.
- "Homoeroticism" subsection has a very long Dafoe quote I think could be paraphrased. 👨x🐱 (talk) 02:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Done
- "In its second weekend the film expanded to 586 theaters, grossing $3.75 million and finishing eighth at the box office.[38]" Finishing at the box office implies it ended its run that weekend, which the following sentence indicates it didn't.
- Fixed Removed "finishing" from the sentence.
- I know the good article criteria doesn't necessarily require completeness, but the critical response section is tiny to the point of posing the same weight concerns I had for the genre the article presents. Only the opinion of three reviews are presented, yet Rotten Tomatoes has recorded 381 professional critic reviews of this movie. Imagine what other frequently-brought-up perspectives and possibly less-favorable opinions we could be missing here. "Broad in its coverage" is it very likely not.
Working Done
- The "Notes" section has nothing in it.
- Done Removed.
- What makes Thrillist, Flipscreened and NextBestPicture high-quality reliable sources? Mashable is also being currently contended on Wikipedia for its reliability.
- The Thrillist and Mashable sources are interviews/analysis and NextBestPicture has been used in major articles. I removed Flipscreened.
👨x🐱 (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Decent work so far. I found the plot section did its best to explain the film's artsy plot within a 700 word limit. That can't be easy to do, given that you can't make conclusions from a set of events from these type of movies, so just summarizing the set of events seems to be the best solution. I also found the prose understandable if requiring explanation or linking of jargon at points, and the themes analysis rather interesting. I just think the article is pretty short for the type of notable topic it is, especially being an abstract A24 film, although I know GA isn't about completeness. Once this passes for GA, I'm gonna expand this very much so, which reviews and academic literature aplenty. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- I am currently expanding the production section from the on-and-off drafting I've done in recent months. I have to echo your concerns about the article's lack of comprehensiveness (for an otherwise notable film) and am quite surprised this was nominated in its present state. HumanxAnthro Some Dude From North Carolina It'Ll take a few days but please feel free to let me know what you guys think. DAP 💅 19:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- @DAP389: Thank you, also like I said, comprehensiveness is only an FA requirement. Also, I've made plenty of comments on your Chromatica peer review, so take a look at those ;) 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- I am currently expanding the production section from the on-and-off drafting I've done in recent months. I have to echo your concerns about the article's lack of comprehensiveness (for an otherwise notable film) and am quite surprised this was nominated in its present state. HumanxAnthro Some Dude From North Carolina It'Ll take a few days but please feel free to let me know what you guys think. DAP 💅 19:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Decent work so far. I found the plot section did its best to explain the film's artsy plot within a 700 word limit. That can't be easy to do, given that you can't make conclusions from a set of events from these type of movies, so just summarizing the set of events seems to be the best solution. I also found the prose understandable if requiring explanation or linking of jargon at points, and the themes analysis rather interesting. I just think the article is pretty short for the type of notable topic it is, especially being an abstract A24 film, although I know GA isn't about completeness. Once this passes for GA, I'm gonna expand this very much so, which reviews and academic literature aplenty. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Due to the nominator's busy schedule with other articles and that he is fixing the issues prominently with help from DAP, I will give him far more than a week. You got this, :) 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
@HumanxAnthro and DAP389: Is there an update on this? I wouldn't like to see this nomination sit for a few more months. Urve 00:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- @HumanxAnthro: All Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'll pass this since any other comments would be applicable if we were trying to get this for FA. Great work, although it'll need a lot more for FA. 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.