Talk:Public Enemies (2009 film)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) 05:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm reviewing this article. I hope my comments are helpful. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Very close; should be able to pass easily with a few changes and improvements.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
There are some prose issues, but nothing major. The lead could be a little longer. It's my practice to comment on the prose and other issues below, after making general comments. Follows MOS, especially WP:Real world style.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Did a sources spot check; looks good.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
I especially like the Historical accuracy section; very appropriate for a film of this genre.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Looking at the history, it doesn't look like there's one lead editor. Rather, it seems collaborative, even from some anonymous IPs. That poses some problems with the prose (see below), which often occurs when an article has multiple editors.
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):
I wonder if you could add some images of the actual historical figures, at least of Dillinger and Purvis, in the Historical accuracy section.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
In general, looks good. See comments below, which I'll add later.Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Lead needs to be expanded. Remember, the lead is supposed to summarize the article for those who don't want to read the entire article. Its current version doesn't do that.

Plot

As I state above, the prose in this article reads like it was written by more than one person. Getting numerous reviews will help, so I recommend that you get this article peer reviewed and copyedited at least once.

This section "suffers" from choppiness, so it doesn't flow well. I recommend varying the sentences, both in length and in type. For example, the two sentences in the first paragraph have the same structure. I recommend changing their structure to vary things. The use of passive voice makes it unclear who killed Floyd. I think you should go through this entire section and change the structure of as many sentences as you can. You should also change as many instances of passive voice as possible.

In between a series of bank robberies... Don't start sentences with a preposition. How about: Dillinger meets Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard) at a restaurant during a series of bank robberies and woos her by buying her a fur coat.

Watch the unencyclopedic language: Despite thinking Nelson hasn't the discipline for his style of robbery...' Change to: Despite thinking Nelson does not have the discipline for his style of robbery...

The sixth paragraph in this section is probably the best example of the above-mentioned choppiness. This is what I'd do with it: Purvis and his men apprehend Carroll and torture him to learn the gang's location, so Purvis organizes an ambush at Little Bohemia. Dillinger and Hamilton escape separately from Nelson and the rest of the gang; agents Winstead and Hurt (Don Frye) pursue Dillinger and Hamilton through the woods, and Hamilton is fatally wounded during the ensuing gunfight. Nelson, Shouse and Van Meter try to escape by hijacking a Bureau car, and kill Purvis's partner Carter Baum (Rory Cochrane) in the process. After a car chase, Purvis and his men kill Nelson and the rest of the gang. Hamilton dies that night and Dillinger buries his body.

Cast needs to be copyedited. I think that the prose is fine for GA, but I recommend that you have someone take a look at it for improvement sake. This would tighten up the prose; for example: He felt "some kind of inherent connection" to Dillinger through one of his grandfathers, who ran moonshine, and his stepfather, who committed burglaries and robberies and spent time in the same prison Dillinger helped his associates escape from. I think you could just say "through his grandfather". You don't need to explain the reasons for his stepfather's incarceration; just say "...who was incarcerated in the Lake County Jail, the same prison from which Dillinger helped his associates escape". I could go through more of the text, since there are many places in this section and the rest of the article that could be tightened up, but I've never thought that GAC was a place for that.

Why did Cotillard only speak English during the filming? You need to explain why, for those of us who aren't familiar with her, and for the lazy who don't bother to link to her article to discover that she's not American and that she speaks French.

Development: However, Burrough had no experience in screenwriting, and says his drafts were probably "very, very bad. Ishtar bad." Not everyone will get the reference to Ishtar, so you should explain it. Like this: "However, Burrough had no experience in screenwriting, and compared the quality of his first drafts to the movie Ishtar, which was mostly panned by the critics."

Filming: The film became a flash point in the public debate about the "film tax credits" that are offered by many states. I'm not sure what you mean by "flash point". Explain, please.

Critical response: It currently holds a 70/100 from Metacritic, which indicates "generally favorable reviews." You should state when this was true, as you did in the previous sentence.

Historical accuracy: This is by far the best-written section of this article. The second paragraph depends too much on quotes, though. I suggest that you paraphrase.

Nice job, for the most part. I'll give you a week to work a little on the prose, along with the other minor issues I've brought up, and I'll pass it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing's been done and, since it was a drive-by nom, I don't think anything will; suggest fail. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well gee, that was a nice way of wasting my valuable time. Not Wiz's fault, of course; I just don't know what a "drive-by nom" looks like, I suppose. At least the review's here if anyone wants to improve this in the future. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]