Talk:Citizen Kane/GA1

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

Reviewer: BenLinus1214 (talk · contribs) 16:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

This looks like it'll be a pretty quick review. Just give me a few days to fully read the article and make sure that there aren't any problems I'm not seeing. My assessment should be done today or tomorrow. From what I'm seeing so far, the sources look great and the article is extremely in-depth. It might even go too in-depth in places but that's not a reason to decline a GA review.


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

Good work. Thanks to everybody who spent hours making this article great--your work is appreciated! :)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Refs are great.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * I don't think it's a big problem, but get consensus on the splitting the article issue before someone takes this to FA.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Some vandalism, as to be expected, but no noticeable edit wars.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Congratulations!
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Congratulations!

Kael section overblown
The section dealing with film critic Pauline Kael's discredited "exposè" Raising Kane is overly long and unnecessarily detailed.

It is clear even within the existing section that this essay was the work of a dishonest critic/writer with an agenda, who studiously avoided interviewing any of the living principles in the matter who might have contradicted her preconceived theories, who conveniently "lost" most of the notes of those interviews which allegedly supported her, and who very likely stole material from other, autheitic researchers.

Really, I don't see that much more than that needs to be said in this article. The level of detail provided would be more appropriate in an independent article on the "Raising Kane" essay itself, or as a subsection in the biographical articles on Kael or Wells. 67.206.183.168 (talk) 03:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh my, I hadn't seen this comment. I contributed the "Raising Kane" section here, and the other day I trimmed it and created a separate article for "Raising Kane". — WFinch (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Failure or Success?
In the Hearst's response section, within two sentences the film is called a "relative failure" and a "modest success"


 * "The Oscar-nominated documentary The Battle Over Citizen Kane lays the blame for the film's relative failure squarely at the feet of Hearst. The film did decent business at the box office; it went on to be the sixth highest grossing film in its year of release, a modest success its backers found acceptable."

The "sixth highest grossing film" of the year hardly seems like any reasonable definition of a "failure" -- particularly during wartime, and especially in view of Hearst's active opposition to the film.

So which is it: failure or success?

"Approved critics"?
"The film currently has an incredibly rare 100% rating at Rotten Tomatoes, based on 66 reviews by approved critics."

What, exactly, constitutes an "approved critic"? A critic that only writes positive reviews of movies that the editors happen to like? It's hard to believe that 66 unbiased reviewers wouldn't have even a single negative comment about such a controversial film.