Talk:Barbarella (film)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Sock (talk · contribs) 13:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

It will be my great honour to do the GA review for this wonderful movie. I'll be rewatching it tonight, and beginning to the review tomorrow (or Wednesday at the latest). Sock  ( tock talk)  13:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

No action here for 19 days. I can tell you first off that references 17 and 29 have errors, as does the source by 'Spencer, Kristopher'. Bollyjeff &#124;  talk  02:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I fixed 17 and 29. Not sure what you mean with the Spencer, Kristopher source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Criteria
Hoo boy, this took far too long. I am so sorry. But hopefully I can make it up to you with a very thorough review. I'll just do the checks up here, then go in-depth on my reasoning below.


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Specifics
Lead
 * My only issue here is with "positronic ray". It really needs a note or a further elaboration on what it is, because if I hadn't seen the movie, I would be deeply confused by that sentence. Alternatively, it could just be swapped out for something like this: "...Durand Durand, who has created a weapon that could destroy humanity." Otherwise, this lead is great!
 * Agreed! Changed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Plot
 * Who is Barbarella? It just says "Barbarella is assigned by the president of Earth" with no explanation of why the president knows who she is, or who she is apart from her name. I know this is a little tricky given what you have to work with, but just the name doesn't paint a picture of who she is at all.
 * Ahh good point. I just labeled her a space adventurer. Does that suffice? Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Considering that's about all we get about her, I believe so. Sock   ( tock talk)  18:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Same issue with the positronic ray here. Perhaps referring to it as a "laser-powered superweapon" would be more comprehensive, or something of that ilk.
 * Agreed. Using your words! :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * "They bring her into the wreckage of a spaceship, where she is bound and several dolls with razor-sharp teeth attack her" > "They bring her into the wreckage of a spaceship, where she is bound and attacked by several dolls with razor-sharp teeth." Something along those lines, previous wording is awkward.
 * You are not wrong! Changed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * "and she expresses her appreciation by having sex with him in the old-fashioned way (which was replaced on Earth long ago by exaltation-transference pills)". This is a tricky sentence to write, given the amount of information you need to provide for it to make any sense to someone unfamiliar with the film. I'm thinking something like "and she expresses her appreciation by having sexual intercourse with him, a practice that was made obsolete on Earth by taking pills" or something similar. I don't think the time frame of the process changing is necessarily relevant.
 * Tried to re-phrase this a bit more. I used a bit of your phrasing and tried to imply that Barbarella isn't used to this, but like any sixties film, she does it and digs it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Again, with Pygar, I'd say using "sexual intercourse" explains it better than "old-fashioned sex", since that terminology only applies in-universe and is literally just sex to us.
 * Agreed. This one's a bit easier to re-phrase. 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Overall: Not a lot of issues here, just some small wording problems that I don't blame you for having. This is a weird movie.
 * Agreed. This movie honestly...Barbarella passes out so often and just ends up somewhere else. Its tricky to get a real plot from it. :D Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Good stuff! Plot section is looking great. Sock  ( tock talk)  18:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Cast
 * Again only one issue here, and that lies with the image. I'm not convinced that the image is in the public domain. While the trailer may have been created without copyright information, it's using footage from the film which is clearly copyrighted, unless I'm mistaken. I'd get a file reviewer to take a look into that, because I don't think that image is usable. Could very well be wrong here though, just erring on the side of caution. I'd also say this should be in the plot section rather than the cast, since it illustrates an event that occurs in the film.
 * I can live without it honestly as its a pretty crappy quality image (both in image-quality and the also screenshot itself). Barbarella (and most films prior to the mid-1970s) have released their trailers without copyright notices. read more about it here. I forget if I added it or if its been there for a while, but I'm happy to remove it as it does not really add much. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Development
 * Lots of redlinks that I don't think need to be here. I highly doubt any of these links will be created in the near future, which is really the only reason to use redlinks at all.
 * I've removed the redlinks. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * "The comic had been published amidst publicity; unlike previous adult comics, it was published by Belgian-French publisher Eric Losfield in his Editions Le Terrain Vague" - The relevance of this sentence is confusing me. Losfield and the subsequent Editions he published this in seemingly have no baring on the rest of this information. I think this sentence can go in its entirety, or it needs to be expanded to explain why Losfield publishing an adult comic was odd.
 * Y'know, I probably had a point here at one point and forgot to finish that sentence. Whups. Removed it. I'll add it back once I have that book handy. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * "Southern felt that the film was his Candy" - Bit confused by this one, seeing as Southern wrote the book Candy that the subsequent film was based on. I feel like this is missing context.
 * I...think I am too. I've removed the bit about Candy as I can't get more details about what the hell Southern is going on about here! :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * "It was popularly believed that fashion designer Paco Rabanne was responsible for Fonda's costumes" - By who?
 * This was changed by a different editor who dug up some new info. Since we only have that Guardian source, I stated that some publications including the guardian stated this. The source doesn't state that it was a popular opinion, so much that it states that it is fact. Which new information brought forth says that its not. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Filming
 * This section seems a bit thin. For all of the various elements of the film that seem like they could be discussed here, I'm glad to see the notable strip-tease included but it seems odd that there's no further information on anything else (i.e. the excessive-pleasure machine). If more information isn't out there, then this works just fine, but it feels like it could be beefed up.
 * There is not a lot of critical backlog on the films of Vadim, so it was a bit tricky to dig up information. (he was not a really popular director with critics at the time and he's not really popular now either). Curti's book help put things in perspective, but I found the actual making of to be a bit dry or trivial. There is one good interview with Roger Ebert who visited the set who goes into detail how certain scenes were shot. I think it comes off a bit point-formy, but maybe it now leads better into Fonda saying how she really felt on set. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Awesome work expanding this. I've done a bit of copy-editing myself, biggest issue I found was repetitive sourcing. A source can cover multiple sentences or even an entire paragraph. Assuming all of the information comes from the same source, there's no need to break the usage of it up. Sock   ( tock talk)  18:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Post-production
 * One-line and single sentence "paragraphs" always rub me the wrong way. Is there any more information on the editing work by Mercanton? This is another one where I understand if more information is difficult if not impossible to find, but the sentence might just need to go if we can't expand it.
 * I'm happy with removing it as it's pretty minimal. I know some reviewers do not like having sources in the infobox, but its really the only place to put it otherwise. But yeah, I can't find anything, so I'm happy to remove it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Release
 * Again, a bit thin here. No date for the screening in Paris? And if we don't have a date, why list that Paris screening in the infobox over the New York premiere? And it seems like there's a lack of coverage about the controversy the film had surrounding it, unless there was a lack of coverage at the time as well.
 * When I'm working with older films, especially ones that are not American productions, its very difficult to find sources to state a French release date. When I did my research on the article for Black Sabbath, I only got a real source stating its release date Roberto Curti published his book about it in about 2014 or so? Otherwise, it was down to a month. So I couldn't pin point a release date for Barbarella French premiere. I know its on IMDb, but I can not find any source backing that up. I think more information will eventually open up on it, but in the mean time I don't think we are misleading anyone with the maximum amount of information I could get, as I could barely find anything on the films French release. Ditto with Rififi which at least had a Criterion release that had a lot of information. I was pretty excited to dig up very brief Guardian article from my University's documents stating how popular it was in the UK. Because almost every other contemporary resource just says it wasn't popular, which does not seem to be the case according to the contemporary Guardian article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * All fair reasons, my only continued concern is the presence of that Paris date in the infobox when it doesn't have any evidence of being before the New York premiere. I think the New York premiere, since we can source its date, belongs in the infobox instead. Sock   ( tock talk)  18:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can't clarify this now. I've updated the infobox to make it more clear for the wider releases. If we can find more details in the future, I'll clarify it a bit more. Maybe more things will pop up. Looking better now?Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Reviews
 * No reviewer names? Wendy Michener is the person who said that the film "just lies there, with all its psychedelic plastic settings", not the Globe & Mail. It's important to attribute quotes to the correct person, not the company, if an individual's name is included. This was mostly done in the Retrospective portion, just not the Contemporary one.
 * Hmm. I'll wait back to hear back for you on this, but you make a good point. I usually try to only add an author of an article if they have their own wikipage, but I guess I didn't follow through with that. I think I should add names if its a notable critic, and remove them if there is nothing. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sticking by this one personally. Just taking a cursory glance over some featured film articles (including The FP, which was an undertaking largely made by myself, Blackrock (film), and Fight Club), these articles tend to name the critic regardless. For me, it's comparable to those warnings on DVDs that the "views expressed in these commentaries are the views of the individual, and not the view of [publisher]". Same goes for these magazines. Variety didn't think this film had a "flat script", Donald Willis did. Sock   ( tock talk)  18:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Whups. Thought I replied here. I've added the names where I could. Some sources (like Variety) do not really credit an author with a recognizable name (i.e: its just initals or calling themselves "Som.") or something. I basically stated it was a reviewer from these ones where I can't get an author name in. Hope this was good ! Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Aftermath and influence
 * Just a suggestion that this image could be used here
 * While I'm totally for showing off a contemporary Barbarella fanbase with pictures, I'm not so crazy about this one just because the big red devil guys takes way more attention in that photo. Its a bit more of a photo of him than the other person. Can't be that hard to find some free Barbarella dress-up/cosplay online right? Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, way better photo you found there, and a nice added detail in its caption. Sock   ( tock talk)  18:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Redlink again with Gazzam, no need unless he's become relevant recently
 * Removed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The Rodriguez-rooted production information just tapers off. Gazzam was approached and then...nothing. Seems odd to just leave that open-ended like that.
 * Seems odd but that's all she wrote! It seems that Gazzam wrote a script, but since that happened De Laurentiis died and since 2009 the only evidence of it seems to be that it was written, like this weird Variety article that suggests it was already a project that was done. I have not been able to find anything about what happened to this from any published source. The only thing I found was this blog interview with Gazzam here who says the script was completed in about 2012. It used to be on his website, but he has recently changed his site and its not longer there. Not even on archive.org. :( Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair point. If no more information exists, I guess that's really all that can be included. Sock   ( tock talk)  18:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Found this on the Amazon series with Refn, with him appearing to be separated from the project.
 * Not sure if that goes into WP:CRYSTAL or not though...the only little bit he's spoken about it seems to be that "Refn is also thought to have turned down projects including remakes of Wonder Woman, Barbarella and Logan’s Run. and "filmmaker suggested his TV remake of “Barbarella” is no longer happening." Nothing is really concrete as its seems to be just assumptions from vague comments. I personally believe them, but I don't think its something we should have something so leading in an article. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I would say that including his quote about being more interested in Neon Demon and that "not everything needs to be remade" is worth including. Don't necessarily need to say he left or anything, but he certainly did comment on it further. Sock   ( tock talk)  18:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I've added this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The series was actually announced awhile before 2014, with Refn attached as early as 2012. I think the television series element in general needs to be further researched.
 * I've added the earlier announcement. Its a bit of a crystal ball thing as things are often purchased and then sat on forever and nobody is going to report "we failed at making this" so all research is sort of just guessing at what's going on. The closest I could find to anything that was not vague or wishy-washy was Variety stating "Refn was involved as executive producer in a long-gestating “Barbarella” TV series reboot set up at Amazon Studios in 2014 which has not been made.". Not sure how to add that, "Current status: Nothing"? :) Help!Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, seems like that's about all that exists. Can't ask you to include info that is non-existent! Sock   ( tock talk)  18:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

References
 * Source #5 has me a bit uncertain on its reliability.
 * Removed it, that was there before, I should have taken it down on my own. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Fixed a few small things in some of these, but otherwise good stuff. I'm not sure what is referring to with the Kristopher source, but I'd love to hear what the issue is.
 * I believe I've fixed what he was stating earlier. It was just a coding error. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Very little left at this point! I still have a handful of issues with the article, which have all been detailed above, but it's within a home stretch now. Can't applaud your work here enough! Sock  ( tock talk)  18:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Overall
Pass or Fail: I'll keep this on hold for two weeks rather than one, to make up for how tardy I was to reviewing it. A fair amount of issues throughout this article but nothing I don't think is fixable with a bit more work and research. The section for proposed sequels and some of the production areas stand out as the ones needing more expansion, and since I was able to find a few things about them with just a couple searches I'm sure it won't be too difficult for you. , you've done an excellent job on this article. Just a little further now! Sock  ( tock talk)  14:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Passed. Fantastic work,. I'm happy to add this excellent film's excellent article to our list of Good Articles. May your next GA review take far less time. Sock  ( tock talk)  23:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)