Talk:The Warped Ones/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
You might want to have the album part of the article follow Wikipedia:Album#Track_listing and other WP:Albums standards. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

Many citations seem to cite this link which is a blog and blogs are generally not considered a reliable source. This source as well here also seems questionable for the Criterion release.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: : Can we get a cast listing per MOS:Film?

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: I'm not sure it's fair to say that the film featured as "possible influence to the "most hellbent characters" of acclaimed director Quentin Tarantino's films and specifically to Stanley Kubrick's iconic A Clockwork Orange (1971)" as that's just speculation on that reviewer's point. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just from some balanced out reviews, I've google searched and found that TV Guide and Allmovie both gave low 1-star ratings to this film. Some note of this should be added as it's otherwise overtly positive. Here's the links for them. tv guide, Allmovie
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
We'll need some alt tags for the poster images and the album cover per WP:ALT. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
On hold for a week.Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heya, Mr. Banas! Thanks for the review. I see you've been busy on a some of my favourite Criterion films... and a Van Damme? :)

1B—I added the quotation marks around the track titles. I don't have any information on who did what exactly on each track beyond by line. I think the three horizontal sections is in compliance, if I'd done it vertically it would take up more than a screen length with a lot of blank space which seemed excessive.
2B—I know Wikipedia generally frowns on blogs but Tim Lucas is a long established and reliable film critic and writer. If the blog was by any old schlub I wouldn't use it. With regards to the DVD release, I considered leaving that out but if someone reads the article and wants to check out the movie I can't in good conscience tell them about the dubbed (I think pan and scan) DVDR without mentioning a subbed, widescreen, restored DVD on the horizon. The moderator in the Texas Geek ref also mentioned Criterion owns the rights (in an oddly hostile way), as did Mark Walkow (either the same video or another Q&A for A Colt Is My Passport or possibly the comment section of the Outcast Cinema blog, can't remember which at the moment) and the American Cinematheque credited Janus (partners with Criterion) for the retro print. Would adding any of those help? I thought the Lucas link was the cleanest way to do it.
3A—I incorporated the cast section into the synopsis as per the Tenebrae (film) example at WP:FILMCAST. I believe cast sections are slowly and optionally being phased out (I was never really happy having a list section right in the middle of an article's prose).
4—The Tarantino, Kubrick connection it is framed as being one man's opinion/theory and he does make a strong case—Tarantino's no stranger to Asian cinema and if Kubrick was directly influenced by Funeral Parade of Roses for Clockwork, maybe he caught this one too. I summarized his full case because it is a big claim. If there were any differing views I'd present them but, frankly, it was a struggle to find as much as I did for the article. I didn't even notice the star ratings at Allmovie or TV Guide. I've added them (wish they'd elaborated though.)
6A—Added.

How'm I doing? And thanks again. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 02:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. All these points are fair I think then. If someone who knows the wiki rules more then I do can elaborate then I'd let them as this is a film that's probably next to impossible to find tons of detail on. (In English anyways). Perhaps if it ever does get that Criterion release more information will be able to inputted. Good job on the article. I'm passing it! Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]