Talk:Filmmaking technique of Luis Buñuel

Filmmaking technique of Luis Buñuel has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 9, 2018. (Reviewed version).

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Filmmaking technique of Luis Buñuel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Skyes(BYU) (talk · contribs) 21:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction[edit]

I'm going to be doing this review. Unfortunately, I will not be able to finish today, but I can at least get started. I'm excited to read and learn about the techniques of this filmmaker! Skyes(BYU) (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see that you are being very thorough. My detailed responses are below. JohnWickTwo (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria[edit]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, 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): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
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:

If at any point you disagree, please feel free to debate my suggestions, as I am not a perfect editor and could have misunderstood something.

Lead[edit]

I think the lead could be altered a little bit to better reflect the information that follows in the body of the article. Techniques for which he is most well-known could be touched on briefly as well as his most significant influences. All I know is that I looked at the lead immediately after I read the body of the article and I didn't feel like it completely summarized the information in the article.

It seems that there is a missing paragraph in the lede section, and I have added a short new paragraph in the lede to summarize some of the important aspects of the article previously not put into the lede. It now appears as the new second paragraph of the lede. JohnWickTwo (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you, that improved the lead significantly. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Style of directing[edit]

The Hoolboom reference (footnote 12) has a dead link.

There was another link available which allows for the full access by download of the Hoolboom book. Switched the url and removed the dead link notice. JohnWickTwo (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surrealism[edit]

This may just be my opinion, but this sentence seems a bit odd and out of place in this article: "Buñuel's world is one in which an entire dinner party suddenly finds itself inexplicably unable to leave the room and go home, a bad dream hands a man a letter which he brings to the doctor the next day, and where the devil, if unable to tempt a saint with a pretty girl, will fly him to a disco." I understand exactly what you are trying to say and it's a nice sentence, but doesn't seem very encyclopedic. You are welcome to debate this though, I would be interested in hearing your reasoning for adding it in. Personally, I would just suggest saying something like "common themes/situations in Buñuel's work include..." Skyes(BYU) (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only way I could think of to do this was to re-write it as 2-3 sentences and replace the old version with the new version in 2-3 sentences. Its a little larger as an edit, though it may be more readable and understandable in this expanded form. JohnWickTwo (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fix; I think it reads much better. Love it! Skyes(BYU) (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overall[edit]

Things are looking really good. I'm going to read through the article one or two more times to look for little things as well as overall structure and layout. Any small fixes I have no problem doing myself. I will let you know if there are any big fixes, otherwise I can see passing this article very soon. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing remarks[edit]

I feel comfortable passing this article. It is well written, thorough, and uses a good number of reliable sources. It's a clear and easy read, I'm sure, even for someone unfamiliar with the topic. I see no issues with copyright, plagiarism, or neutrality. The editor was quick to respond to my queries, though few were needed since this article was well done. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with lead[edit]

I've added the {{Lead rewrite}} tag. I see a few issues with the intro:

The first sentence (Luis Buñuel Portolés was a Spanish filmmaker who worked in Spain, Mexico and France.) doesn't summarize the topic of the article. (This is one of several sentences that seem to be copied verbatim from Luis Buñuel. Many of them share the issue that they're more summarizing Buñuel himself rather than his filmmaking technique)
The infobox (again, seemingly copied from Luis Buñuel) should probably not be there, IMO. It gives the impression that this is a biographical article.
Some prose is essay-like or unclear in its meaning, especially in the second paragraph. e.g his films rely on surrealistic elements often without hesitation?
General disconnect between the intro and what follows. There are points made in the intro that aren't elaborated on in body, and most of the body content isn't summarized in the intro (nothing in the intro about sound, music, entomology, atheism...). Colin M (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]