Talk:Sweet Smell of Success/GA1

GA Review

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

Taking this on; it's nearly reached the top of the backlog list, and I've had a passing interest in National Film Registry stuff since I tried to eliminate any redlinks from the list of films on that page (only two to go).

Quickfail criteria first...

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Y
2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Y
3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{NPOV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{clarifyme}}, or similar tags. Y
4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars. Y
5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint. Y

Detailed review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   (i) I think I'd like to see more wikilinks in general. Just at a glance, both preview screening and A. O. Scott are blue links which wouldn't be out of place, along with jazz guitarist (or jazz guitar), columnist, etc. I guess it's subjective how much is too much when it comes to (over)wikilinking, but especially in the middle sections there's an average of less than three wikilinks per paragraph, and some parts look very bare to me in the context of blue links.

   I added the wikilinks you mentioned and a couple more, I think but I don't want to over-wiki-link it either. Sometimes, that can get abused.--J.D. (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

   (ii) In the lede, I'm kind of 'hmmm'ing at something: the second paragraph seems quite staccato, insofar as there's three quite abrupt sentences, all beginning in the same "In XXXX..." fashion. I'd suggest moving "in 2002" from the start of the second sentence to the end in order to give variety to the prose. Also, you might want to think about clipping the last sentence out of the first paragraph and merging it with the last sentence of the second, so it would read something like In 2003, the AFI named J.J. Hunsecker, who was based on famed New York columnist Walter Winchell, as number 35 of the top 50 movie villains of all time. The two sentences just seem quite related to me.

   I made these changes. Thanks! I also added a little bit about the preview screening.--J.D. (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

   (iii) I think the opening line of the second paragraph in ==Production== needs better punctuation, e.g. ...in a 1950 issue of Cosmopolitan magazine, renamed "Tell Me About It Tomorrow!"

   Done.--J.D. (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   A few reference/external link issues, as below:

   (i) The link to A.O. Scott's review doesn't work, though the page still seems available here.

   Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

   (ii) The NY Observer review hosted at filmforum.org is also unavailable, although it still shows up in Google searches so it's either temporary or recent. Nevertheless, the review is still hosted by the Observer itself at this page, so that might be a better link?

   Fixed--J.D. (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

   (iii) I'm slightly confused about the two references to Notes on Sweet Smell of Success. Both citations for the statements sourced to this are given as Kemp's book. Is Notes a chapter/secton within that book, or a separate work which has been omitted from the refs?

   It is taken from Kemp's book but I will check to see if he has a citation for it.--J.D. (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

   Ah, that's clearer. I'd perhaps tweak those sentences slightly to explain that, since at the moment it kind of comes out of nowhere and is never really explained. Also, you have "Mackendrick remembers" and "Mackendrick stated" close together, and they can perhaps be combined? They're both describing the same intensive rewrite, after all. Something vaguely like:

   "Mackendrick assumed that Odets would only need two or three weeks to polish the script. He took four months. As Mackendrick remembered in Notes on Sweet Smell of Success, <add description of what Notes is e.g. part of his biography>, "We started shooting with no final script at all, while Clifford reconstructed the thing from stem to stern. In effect, [he] dismantled the structure of every single sequence in order to rebuild situations and relationships that were much more complex, had much greater tension and more dramatic energy".[6]" (I'll let you choose the exact words) --DeLarge (talk)

I've tweaked the above to make it a bit clearer. I removed Mackendrick's name and substituted with "director" just so that there is no confusion between him and Odets. I also clarified the source of Notes.--J.D. (talk) 14:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

1. I'm not absolutely happy with this section as-is, but I think it's one of those things where, if you come back to it in two or three weeks with a fresh pair of eyes, a better sentence will just leap out at you immediately. To be honest I wasn't nuts with my suggested version either. Maybe tap a former {{User LoCE}} member for advice? I'll tick it off anyway, since the requested improvements have been applied.

   (iv) In ==Reaction==, there's no citation for the Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic scores, even though we link to both sites via ==External links==. Personally (and I don't know what WP:FILM protocol is with regards to external links) I think the EL section is a bit overloaded, so if those two could be converted to inline citations instead I think that'd be an improvement.

   Hmmm... A lot of film articles tend to shy away from citating RT and Metacritic because they are listed in the External links but if you feel that these should be cited. I also have moved some of the links listed in the External links section to Further reading as it is more appropriate.--J.D. (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

   No probs, I'm not going to demand an different approach to the article just to satisfy me; if it's commonplace to just leave them as external links, that's fine. Actually, just shifting some of the other links to the new ==Further reading== section has improved things greatly. --DeLarge (talk)

   (v) Do you have any kind of reference for the The New York Herald's ten best list for 1957?

   If you look closely, there is a citation a couple of sentences after for that group of statements. If you want me to cite it again then no problem as it comes from the Kemp book.--J.D. (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

   No, that's cool—I just wasn't sure if the citation only covered Denby's comments. It doesn't seem like a contentious statement, and if any future reader demands a citation I guess it's a simple addition. --DeLarge (talk)

   (vi) While the link to the Library of Congress site is OK for verifying that it's indeed on the NFR list, I found (while creating other NFR pages) that there's often a press release for each year of nominations which either go into slightly greater depth, or are easier to navigate by only including that year's selections. Sure enough, I think either of these two links would be better (I prefer the first myself, as it gives more context to the NFR): [1], [2].

   Fixed--J.D. (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

   (vii) Continuing on from point four above, there's other external links which I think might be better as citations, especially to fill in the ==Plot== section. I understand that it's apparently commonplace to have this section without references, but where we have good links which can verify the paragraphs I think we should use them (especially the filmsite.org link).

   Guess I can't persuade you on this. Sigh... such is life when you battle against incumbent WP standards.

Whoops, sorry 'bout that. I actually just forgot to fix this one. Let me take a crack at it.--J.D. (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

1. (viii) The last link, to Alexander Mackendrick at filminfocus.com, doesn't seem to link to where you want it. I think it should point here?

   Fixed--J.D. (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Looks OK. The one thing that pops out is how many references/links are from 2002, and one of the articles mentions that it was re-released with a new 35 mm print. Do you know if this was this a significant re-release worth expanding on, or just something limited to a few art-house screenings in NYC?

   I'll take a look and see if I can track anything down.--J.D. (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

   It's not going to hold up the article—like the image issue, it's something that can be worked on at your leisure. The closest I could find was in the Corliss article in Time, which suggests it was only in the Manhattan Film Forum. I guess that would make sense; if the musical opened on Broadway the same year, there's going to be an increased awareness of the film at a quite localized level. Of course, all of that's speculation and original research on my part, but hey-ho, it's only the talk page. --DeLarge (talk)

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No problems with this.

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   All OK here.

5. 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 guess it would be nice if a screenshot of one of the key scenes could be obtained under fair use, but its absence isn't significant enough to warrant a fail. I did find one here which you might want to think about appropriating.

   Added image.--J.D. (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for the moment. Well, not much needed done, comparing the current version with the one nominated. And, most timely, I got my copy of the film delivered today. So I can kick back over the weekend and take a bite outta this cookie. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)