Talk:Her (film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 23:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll take this. Expect comments up within a week.

OK here we go..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

• Per WP:INFOBOXREF, no need to cite things here that are already sourced within article body
  • Removed. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Plot

• Can't exactly say "in the near future" since the exact timerange is never established in the film
  • Removed the future portion altogether. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• "compose heartfelt, intimate letters"..... seems like POV
  • Removed. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• Any particular reason the voice actors aren't mentioned in the plot when other actors are? Given Scarlett Johansson's prominence in the film, I'd imagine she'd be included if Joaquin Phoenix is.
  • Removed all actors from the plot. I never see the point in including them when there's a cast section right below. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• "She insists that this does not change her love for Theodore, but rather makes it stronger" → "However, she insists that it makes her love for Theodore stronger"
  • Good suggestion, changed. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• "he still holds her dear"..... awkward phrasing
  • Changed to "cares about her". Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Cast

• This list needs citations for the roles
  • Outside of Bill Hader's role (that's just the generic name in the credits) and Soko's voice role (couldn't find a good source, removed it) I've added these. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Production

• Quick note: I merged all of these sections together for now, as none were all that substantial. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Development

• "Megan Ellison’s" should be "Megan Ellison's" per MOS:QUOTEMARKS
  • Fixed. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Editing

• The quote "What happened in post was that we edited the movie for ages and finally realized that what Samantha and I had done together wasn't working the right way. It was a really hard realization to come to." could be paraphrased, and it's redundant given the previous quote
  • Fixed. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Music

• This subsection is rather short, and should be expanded or merged into other sections per WP:LAYOUT
  • See comment under the "Production" header. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• No source is given for Phoenix playing ukelele
  • Couldn't find one, removed. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Release

• I'm concerned with the WP:LAYOUT of really short subsections. "Box office" and "Home media" can come before "Critical response" and "accolades". Could copies of DVD's and Blu-ray's sold perhaps be added?
  • In terms of DVD/Blu-ray copies, I've already added that. Expanded Box office. Merged "Home media" with the initial Release section, which is not really standard, but I think it works. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Critical response

• A total of six reviews isn't very much for a popular movie such as this. For a good example of how much to aim for, see articles like Beauty and the Beast (1991 film).
• For the Time review, "movie’s" should be "movie's" and "it’s" should be "it's" per MOS:QUOTEMARKS
  • Fixed. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• "However, the film was not without its detractors"..... awkward phrasing. A better transition would be something like "In contrast" or "Conversely".
  • Fixed. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• Regarding the "she also praised Johannson's performance" bit, I'd elaborate by describing what Stephanie Zacharek liked about her performance with a description and/or quote
  • Expanded. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Accolades

• I realize this has a referral link to a separate page, but this seems a bit short. The Saturn Awards are worth including here, and I'd also add some of the winners for nominations that this film lost to.
  • Added quite a bit. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• "the American Film Institute included the film in its list of the top ten films of 2013"..... give the specific ranking
  • Not possible. It only ranks #1, the rest are alphabetical. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

References

• FN2: Box Office Mojo shouldn't be italicized
  • Fixed. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• FN3: This should be removed as it doesn't talk about the script writing process (although I see FN4 supports it taking 5 months to write the script)
  • "Johansson ended up working every weekend for four months with Jonze constantly tweaking and rewriting her lines." That's all the source is being used to say. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• FN6: Is "Twitch Film" reliable? Either way, it shouldn't be italicized
  • I've never had problems with people considering Twitch reliable. I'd have to ask around. Fixed the italicization. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• FN7: "/Film" shouldn't be italicized, and I see nothing in this talking about Sony Pictures Classics or Panorama Media.
  • Fixed, removed non-verifiable info. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• FN9: Not sure if "MovieWeb" is reliable
  • Replaced with a Collider source. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• FN11: "theguardian.com" should read The Guardian, and doesn't mention Cleverbot when talking about instant messaging
  • Fixed. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• FN12: Indiewire shouldn't be italicized
  • Fixed. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• FN13: Same as FN7
  • Fixed. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• FN14: Should just read New York in italics
  • Fixed. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• FN16: Doesn't say that
  • Removed the incorrect part. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• FN17: Is "Shoot Online" reliable?
  • Not sure. Opted to replace the source with another one, and add some new info as well.
• FN18: HitFix shouldn't be italicized, and the bit "it sort of became something else" (taken from ref) doesn't say the song was necessarily "reworked" for Reflektor
  • Removed that bit. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• FN19: Pitchfork Media shouldn't be italicized
  • Fixed. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• FN20: Same as FN12
  • Fixed. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• FN21: Doesn't mention a premiere date for this film, or even that it is the 51st New York Film Festival
  • Ref improved with the necessary information, changed "51st" to "2013". Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• FN22: Publisher is Penske Media Corporation
  • Removed as unnecessary.
• FN41: Same as FN9
  • I think it's fine for this one, seeing as this information can easily be found on Amazon and other sales sites. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• FN42: Says it sold ~ $2.2 million for Blu-ray and ~4.9 million overall video sales
  • Strange, I added that part myself and I'm certain the numbers were right at the time. Alas, I've fixed it.

Overall

• Well-written?

• Prose quality: Decent, but needs improvements
• Manual of Style: Almost

• Verifiable?

• Reference layout: Several citations aren't properly formatted
• Reliable sources: A couple questionable references
• No original research: One unsourced section and some unsupported statements

• Broad in coverage?

• Major aspects: Needs some expansion
• Focused: Nothing of concern

• Neutral?: Not quite

• Stable?: No ongoing content disputes, edit wars, or major changes

• Illustrated, if possible, by images?

• Appropriate licensing: Image poster has adequate FUR, and cast members photo is from Commons
• Relevance and captioning: Looks good

• Pass or Fail?: This nomination is on hold for seven days. My concerns aren't too extensive, and I feel this can be done in time. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: Apologies for how long it took me to get to this, but I've had a hectic week. Hopefully I've met your requirements! Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

You've done well, Sock. Just need to add more reviews (The current total used, 6, isn't very much) Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: I'm in the process of doing that right now, I somehow missed that bullet in your listing. Sock (tock talk) 21:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Nothing to worry about, just ping me or post on my talk page after you finish that up. I will then do another reference spotcheck. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I actually went ahead and added a few reviews myself, and am now passing this article. Congrats! Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)