Talk:City of Angels (film)/GA1

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

Reviewer: 97198 (talk · contribs) 00:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I will review this article. 97198 (talk) 00:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments

 * Plot
 * Very clearly written; as someone who has never seen the film I had no trouble understanding this section


 * Themes
 * Writer Brian Godawa interprets the film as having a "humanistic worldview" in which "physical humanity" outranks the spiritual, but feels this contradicts 1 Peter 1:12, where "things which angels desire to look into" are in the gospel of the "Holy Spirit". – I'm having some trouble understanding this sentence. I get the gist of it but I'm unsure what in the gospel of the "Holy Spirit" means in this context. Is there any reason for placing Holy Spirit in quotation marks? Is the meaning different to the Holy Spirit in Christianity?
 * I mostly hear the term as "Holy Ghost". If you feel Holy Spirit is a common term, all good. Ribbet32 (talk) 07:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with both. Considering Holy Ghost redirects to Holy Spirit in Christianity, I think we can assume it's a common enough term not to need quotation marks. And my original concern about understanding the sentence stands; the wording could be clearer. 97198 (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I already tweaked it to "has more value", but I just tried again. Ribbet32 (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Professor Christopher R. Miller contrasts Seth's book choice of Ernest Hemingway's A Moveable Feast to John Milton's Paradise Lost – what book choice? Also, this sentence seems to contradict the caption of the image; is Miller contrasting Paradise Lost with A Moveable Feast or the characters in the film?
 * Tweaked. Ribbet32 (talk) 07:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Tate believes the fact that the angels reside in the library indicates they represent "an age of reason, order and learning" – what library? Needs some context.
 * Tweaked. (Incidentally, they apparently all live in libraries all over the world). Ribbet32 (talk) 07:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Professor Jeff Malpas says that, whereas Der Himmel über Berlin was informed by Berlin – any reason for using the German title while the rest of the article uses Wings of Desire?
 * Aside from some variation, Berlin is in the German title. Ribbet32 (talk) 07:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the variation only serves to add confusion for readers. Wikipedia's MOS favours English titles anyway. 97198 (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. Ribbet32 (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Production
 * her company reached out to Wenders to purchase the rights – I would clarify that these were the rights to a remake, rather than the rights to the original film itself
 * Tweaked. Ribbet32 (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * His new co-star Dennis Franz was also starring on the series NYPD Blue – not sure what the relevance of this sentence is
 * Tweaked. Ribbet32 (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Still, why is this relevant at all to discussion of the film? 97198 (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with providing some context about what project an actor was hired off of/made up their background in a discussion of casting, IMO, and anyway, it is noted in secondary sources. Ribbet32 (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The reference in the SF Library image caption is unnecessary
 * Disagree, since it comes before where the reference appears in the text. Also, WP:GA? point 2. Ribbet32 (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's unnecessary, but there doesn't appear to be a specific MOS guideline, so never mind. 97198 (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * For angel scenes shot at Malibu Beach, it was decided that the angels would have footprints to avoid the perception that the sand was too hard to leave imprints. Thus, Nelson erased the footprints soon after they are first seen – I don't understand this. They wanted the angels to have footprints, therefore the editor digitally erased the footprints? If anything, the "thus" needs changing because I don't see the connection.
 * Tweaked. Ribbet32 (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Its two singles, the Goo Goo Dolls' "Iris" and Alanis Morissette's "Uninvited", were released to U.S. radio in March and were still receiving substantial radio airplay by the following August – to me, "the following August" can be interpreted as meaning August 1999; a simple "by August" would be clearer
 * OK Ribbet32 (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Release
 * Silberling, Roven and their stars were in attendance – "their stars" sounds awkward to me, as if the actors "belong" in some way to the filmmakers
 * "Actors are cattle" - Hitch 07:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The film's wider release in the United States took place during the weekend – what weekend? The weekend after the premiere? This is a separate paragraph so it isn't clear what weekend you're referring to.
 * Tweaked. Ribbet32 (talk) 07:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I suggest moving the sentence about wide release to the first paragraph and leaving the sentence about the Blu-ray release in a separate paragraph
 * I don't do one-sentence paras, so I added a bit about the DVD Ribbet32 (talk) 07:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Reception
 * does not need an advocate for how nice it is to be alive in – this wording sounds awkward to me. Could you either reword or quote directly from the source?
 * Tweaked. Ribbet32 (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * What was your approach in listing the different reviews and separating them into two paragraphs? I find a good approach is to either separate positive from negative, or to group the comments by theme (e.g. writing, performances, etc.). I couldn't identify any such approach here; the reviews seem to be listed in a random order with an arbitrary paragraph break. The comment from Wenders in the middle of various film critics also seems out of place.
 * OK, reorg'd to the more positive in first para and the mixed-negative in second. Third para will remain the same. Simple chrono order of reactions since the original releases. Ribbet32 (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * In anticipation of the 25th Saturn Awards, The Los Angeles Times highlighted Meg Ryan's nomination for Best Actress – not really; they included her name without any commentary in a plain list of nominees. Why is this worth mentioning?
 * They didn't list all nominations. Ribbet32 (talk) 07:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * They hardly "highlighted" her nomination; they listed the nominees without any commentary in the major categories. I'm not sure why this is important information for the reader of an encyclopedia. 97198 (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess it's not important, but if listing a few select nominations in The Los Angeles Times isn't highlighting ("pick out, call attention to"), I don't know what is. Ribbet32 (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Images
 * This is a subjective thing, but in my opinion there are a few too many images in the article. For example, four images of filming locations seems a bit excessive to me. And (again, I realise this is totally subjective) the image of Nicolas Cage seems like a strange choice to me given the number of photos of him available on Commons, and I note it isn't used anywhere else on the English Wikipedia.
 * A different photo from ones readers have seen elsewhere is a good thing, IMO. Ribbet32 (talk) 07:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No response to the over-abundance of images? 97198 (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's overabundant. There might be, as you said, a bit of subjectivity here, but I'd define it by whether the photos are cluttered in both the left and right margins of the same space, squeezing the text in the middle. I think the photos will be identifiable to readers who've seen the film and gives them some real-world context. Ribbet32 (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The poster has an adequate fair use rationale

Overall, this is a well-written and thoroughly sourced article, and as I see it there are only relatively minor issues to be addressed as outlined above. I will place the review on hold; please let me know if you have any questions or need further clarification. 97198 (talk) 06:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for a fresh eye. I think I've responded to each point now. Ribbet32 (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * See replies above. 97198 (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've responded to each point now. Ribbet32 (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

There are still a couple of points where we disagree, but they're not overly important in the grand scheme of things. I believe the article satisfies the GA criteria, so I'm happy to pass it. 97198 (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)