Jump to content

Talk:Nostos: The Return/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 01:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

[edit]
  • The poster has various performers that should be included in the infobox per its billing block. These actors that are not included and are missing from the article, in order, are Paola Agosti, Giuseppe Marcoli, Alex Carozzo, and Mariella Fabbris.
    • I added the actors to the production section and Branca De Camargo to the infobox, because her name is written above the rest on the poster. I'm reluctant to put other actors in the starring field, because they all have tiny roles.
  • Per the rules of the infobox template, use "{{Plainlist|" instead of "<br/>" when adding multiple entries.
    • Done
  • The running time needs a reference per consistency with other GA-articles.
    • Done
  • Add a comma after "preparing, filming".
    • Done
  • "lyrical version Homer's" → "lyrical version of Homer's"
    • Done

Plot

[edit]
  • Per the rules presented at WP:FILMPLOT, I suggest doing either two things: (1) Remove "(Luigi Mezzanotte [it])" and "(Branca De Camargo)" from this section and add a cast section with all the actors in the billing block and those with important roles, or (2) add the names of each actor in this section, including the ship's crew and the various woman mentioned in the summary. Overall, I would prefer if you did the first option to have consistency with other articles.
    • This could be difficult. The movie lists six actor names and a theatre group in the opening credits, but no character is named and there are only really two roles that sources comment on (as mentioned above, the rest are tiny). I might be able to figure out who play the crew etc but it would be original research. I've removed the lead actors from the plot and added their roles to the production section instead. Does that solve the problem?
  • With that in mind, the word count is in great condition at 424 words, passing WP:MOVIEPLOTS.
It would. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his crew are missing" → "his crew is missing" or "his crew missing"
    • Done
  • Remove the comma after "fauna of the location".
    • Done
  • In the note after "seduce her", add a comma after Circe.
    • Done

Themes and analysis

[edit]
  • Add commas after "knowledge", "birthright", "homeland, childhood", "whereas", "Sanskrit", "wide shots", "animals", and "Darwinism".
    • Done
  • Remove the commas after "war and violence", "approach to language", and "human communication".
    • Done
  • "had a both" → "had both a" or "having both a"
    • Done
  • "embryotic" → "embryonic"
    • Done
  • "According the" → "According to the"
    • Done

Production

[edit]
  • Add commas after "painting", "Brescia", "editor", and "Rudolf Maros".
    • Done
  • Remove the comma after "control over the production".
    • Done

Release

[edit]
  • This section looks good.

Reception

[edit]
  • Remove the commas after "poetic cinema" and "boring".
    • Done
  • "wrote the film contains" → "wrote that the film contains"
    • Done

References

[edit]
  • Citations are in excellent shape.

Progress

[edit]
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

@Some Dude From North Carolina: Thank you very much for the review! I've addressed your concerns, with a couple of comments above. Ffranc (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]