Talk:Scarface (1932 film)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: JohnWickTwo (talk · contribs) 03:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment may take a day or two to prepare. It might be interesting in the meantime to hear how you chose this old film to improve and what your background interest is for you to write such an extensive Analysis section for this film. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JohnWickTwo, thank you for your willingness to review this article; I have spent a lot of time and energy on this project. I work in the L.Tom Perry Special Collections department in the Harold B. Lee Library at Brigham Young University. We hold the Howard Hawks collection and we have been working on articles related to Howard Hawks and his films. Scarface is one of three Hawks movie page I am working on currently. Upon doing more research for this article, I became pretty passionate about the movie after having learned more about it and I realized how culturally significant the film was and still is. The film epitomized Hawks' film style and life during the time period. It also influenced the censorship battles of the time as well as the gangster movies of the future. I suppose in writing this article, I recognized my interest and passion for film. I look forward to working with you on this review. Thanks! Skyes(BYU) (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Initiate full assessment[edit]

0 Lede section

Does Capone's name need to be invoked twice in the first paragraph here. Also, your phrasing, "is regarded as one of the greatest ", could read better as "is regarded as among of the most significant..." JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1 Plot

Nice images in this section with useful captions. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2 Cast

Adequate to article. Some editors like to add short descriptions of why actors were selected for certain roles as an option. Also, you could mention any 'similarities' to suggested persona such as Capone, as another option. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3 Production

3.1 Background and development

Filmmaking is one word at Wikipedia and can be linked to the article as well. Separately, "...to hire Fred Pasley", is more conventional wording than what you use. Hughes-Hecht-Hawks is a formidable trio. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3.1.1 Ties to Capone

Adequate to article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3.2 Casting

Your phrase "and petition at the Supreme Court", might look better as: "and to win a petition presented to the Supreme Court ". JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3.3 Filming

Your wording "for the time period", might read as: "for films made in the early 1930s". Accidents and head injuries are usually not covered in the Filming section of film articles. I'm not sure those comments belong in the Filming section. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3.3.1 Censorship

You might want to mention that these were pre-MPAA years with no "R"-ratings, etc. Is this material really a part of "Filming". JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3.3.1.1 Alternate ending

Deeply indexed section. Is this level of nesting of sections really needed and can it be simplified. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3.4 Cultural references

Adequate to article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4 Analysis

This section is interesting though very long. There should also be a link to the Gangster films Wikipedia article as a See also here in this section. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4.1 Major themes

For this section as a whole, you might want to look at the Wikipedia film articles for Gone with the Wind, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Silence by Scorsese as examples of how long in length Analysis sections normally are for GA-film articles on Wikipedia. One option might be to develop some of the more general material you present here by placing into the Gangster Films article at Wikipedia which I mentioned above. That way the article here would more closely resemble other Wikipedia GA-film articles for the Analysis/Interpretation/Themes section.JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4.1.1 Excess

If this is moral excessiveness or non-moral excessiveness then it might be worth calling it that in the section title and your supporting text. "Immoral excess" or "Amoral excess" are phrases I have seen used for this subject matter, though you should choose your own preference to describe it more precisely. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4.1.2 American Dream

American Dream also has its own article at Wikipedia which should appear as a See also in this section. By looking at that article, you might then be able to trim some of the material in this section as well, or move some of it to the American Dream Wikipedia article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4.2 Minor themes

"Secondary themes" or "Other themes" or "Sub-text themes" might look better here as a choice of section title. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4.2.1 Territorialization

"Gangster territory" is a more common description of this topic in this context. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4.2.2 Fear of technology

The destructiveness of machine gun technology was a major issue in WWI. Possibly mention this at the very start of this section along with the WWI legacy. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4.3 Motifs

If you are talking about dark comedy here or 'gallows humor' or dark humor, then you should call it that and link the term to the already existing Wikipedia article for it. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4.3.1 The gang and the gangster

Institutional forms of crime is a major topic in formal political theory as well as in literature. I'm not sure that this section is conveying this fact in its current form. I imagine its even more evident when films like "The Godfather" enter the scene in the 1970s. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4.3.2 Family

Your point on "directly due to" is I think a little overstated here, since so much of your article have talked about the numerous defects in Tony's character and general immorality. The wording should be adjusted. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4.3.3 Isolation

Several of the subthemes you are introducing in this section look like they would be better treated in the "Gangster films" article which I previously mentioned above. It might also make this Analysis section a little shorter and more concise for the purposes of being more reader friendly by not being so long in length of exposition for a Wikipedia film article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4.4 Symbols

Symbolism is again a very general topic in film theory and some of this material may already be covered in other literary and film articles already in Wikipedia. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4.4.1 "The World is Yours"

More than adequate to article. See comment above. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4.4.2 Tommy gun

See my comment above on machine guns. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4.5 Style

Yes its dark and violent, and you might also mention that much of the film is depicted as taking place at night. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

5 Release

Could you mention something about the special features and special featurettes on this film which are often included on DVD releases. Were there any notable "voice-over" commentaries of the film which are available? Who did the voice-over versions, etc. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

6 Reception

You also mentioned earlier in the article that the film was withdrawn from release because of censorship pressures. Did this influence the reception of the film, and should it be mentioned in this section more prominently. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

7 Awards and honors

You might call this section "Industry reception" as done in the Wikipedia article for Gone with the Wind. It might then be included within the Reception section directly above it at present.JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

8 Legacy and influence

This section might be simply called Legacy. It might also include the material from the Related films section directly below it at present, since it already mentions Pacino's version at the very start of this section. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

9 Related films

See my comment in the Legacy section above for possibly merging these sections. You already mention Pacino's version there and there are advantages to keeping this material together on this point. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

9.1 Remake

See my comment on merging this section above. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

9.2 Associated films

Rotten Tomatoes and aggregate scores usually appear at the top of the Reception section of Wikipedia film articles. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

10 See also

There are a few See also articles I have mentioned in the above sections. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That should get things started. Ping me when you are ready to continue or if any clarifications are needed. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments and closing assessment[edit]

The remarkable effort of the nominating editor over the last day was to take seriously the comments made in this assessment and to make what looks like 40-50 edits into the article over the last day to improve its writing and its general outline. The result is a much improved article with many new and useful links included in the article to assist interested readers. The article is well-written. The article is neutral in expression and is thoroughly researched with an extensive bibliography which is useful for future development of the article. The images and graphics in the article are well chosen and have informative captions and all check all the boxes. It can be hoped that the nominating editor will be able at some point in time to add further development to this article towards a feature article in the future and this article is passed. JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]