Talk:Dr. Strangelove/GA1

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 10:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC) I'll take this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments

 * "(who were ordered by the general)" in lead - not sure why this is needed?


 * Stray ]] in ref #6.


 * Not sure that "centerfold" should link to "playmate", as the concept is more general than that. Probably link to Centerfold.


 * There are uncited statements in several paragraphs under 'Cast' (in Mandrake, Muffley).


 * We hear very little about the character of Kahn, von Neumann, Teller, and seemingly most importantly, von Braun. Perhaps we need something on what if anything these men did to be satirised as Strangelove; the statement that his character is "an amalgamation of" theirs implies in an unsubstantiated way that there existed at least some slight "hooks" in their characters for the satire to have some meaning.


 * There are uncited statements in 'Sets and filming', 'Fail Safe', and 'Ending'.


 * Herman Kahn is however introduced repeatedly, as if for the first time, and overlinked in 'Novel and screenplay', in 'Satirizing the Cold War', and yet again in 'Sexual themes'. Perhaps this needs unifying but he certainly doesn't need repeated glosses.


 * The discussion in 'Cast' and the discussion in 'Themes' are however at least adjacent; I wonder if these might be reorganised slightly to reduce the feeling of repetition with Kahn popping up again and again.


 * In 'Themes' it's said that two characters deride Gen. Curtis LeMay of SAC: why was he singled out for such treatment? Some mention of his character and opinions would seem highly relevant, preferably cited to a film critic.


 * There is a "better source needed" tag for the image caption "sitting at an IBM 7090 console[8]".


 * There are uncited statements in 'Satirizing the Cold War'.


 * "... (see On Escalation)." isn't good style; please incorporate the aside into the text.


 * " semirealistic "cobalt-thorium G" doomsday machine": this seems to be uncited as it's not from Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy.


 * Release - we don't need a section 'Box office' just for one sentence; it can readily be merged into 'Reception'.


 * Critical response: I feel this is missing any kind of summary of contemporary reviews from the 1960s, when it was sharply felt because of the Cold War. This needn't be long but there should be a short paragraph (indeed, we could have 'Contemporary' and 'Modern' subsections in Reception).


 * There are uncited statements in 'Critical response'.


 * The 'Awards and honors' table is missing nearly all the required citations.


 * Henriksen and Rice in 'Further reading' both sound as if they should be cited in the text.


 * Why is IMDb listed in external links?


 * A question: part A) What makes Terry Southern, Brian Siano, Grant B. Stillman experts on this film? part B) If the answer to (A) is "plenty" then why not quote and cite them in the text? If not, why are they here?


 * The David Bromwich essay is on Criterion so it is certainly noteworthy. It states that "Merkin Muffley (who looks a good deal like Adlai Stevenson, the symbol, for conservatives, of everything intellectual and unmanly about American liberalism)." This would seem to be well worth saying and citing (and wikilinking) in the article.


 * Rotten Tomatoes is already used in text so it needn't be repeated in External links.

OK, that's about it from me. I very much enjoyed the article, finding the descriptions brought back memories of the movie. I hope the comments will be useful and taken in good part. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll try and get to this today. I'll need some time. I am not the best WP editor in the world. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. I'll look forward to it... I guess you're rather keen on this particular topic! Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Truthfully, I am only kind of a fan of Dr. Strangelove, at least for now. I would like to read up more on each topic it presented. I love the film itself though. The reason I call myself "StrangeloveFan101" is because I had to change my old username due to it being "disruptive." StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, looking forward to your responses to the items above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * (Here's the sandbox I made to edit the article: User:StrangeloveFan101/sandbox SL) I thought I'd be able to do this today, but due to the amount of unsourced information that is in this article (which would require quite a bit of time and research to flesh out), I can't get it done. At least not today. I don't mind researching, but the problem is that I don't have a lot of spare time that I could put toward this particular thing, and I have matters in real life that need tending to. So unfortunately, I won't be able to finish it soon. I'm really sorry about this. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * How would you like to proceed? If you need a couple of weeks to do it over the weekends that would be fine; if you're rather stop now, that's fine too, this page will act as an aide-memoire for anyone else planning on taking the article to GA. Let me know what you'd like. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, it's clear this isn't going anywhere. If the nominator or anyone else would like to take up the reins, please address the comments above, renominate the article and ping me, and I'll resume the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for my delayed response here. I've had to deal with some things in real life. I won't be able to (at least right now) deal with the article right now, due to the fact that I just don't have the time. I'm sorry for this. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)