Talk:Eraserhead/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bruce Campbell (talk · contribs) 01:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Bruce Campbell (talk) 01:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic article. Some FA-potential stuff. Very little wrong with it, just some general comments:

Lead

"Initially opening to tiny audiences"? - is this the most academic way to phrase this?
 * How would "initially opening to audiences of around twenty-five people" sound; or would something else be better? GRAPPLE   X  04:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Production

"but were persuaded when dean Frank Daniel threatened to resign if it was vetoed". An interesting detail. Was there a particular reason why the dean threatened to do so?
 * Doesn't really seem to be any reason more than Daniel fully backing Lynch's style; I get the (OR) feeling that he was never in a position where someone would call his bluff. GRAPPLE   X  04:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't it visually be more educational to the reader to use a screenshot of Spencer's baby, rather than that of a dead rabbit? I think most people are aware of what a dead rabbit looks like, while a screenshot of the baby itself could explain the effect better. A screenshot of the film in its place could also highlight the style of photography.
 * Fair enough, there are presently no fair-use images in the article so I could fit one in without it being a burden. I'll start looking one up now. GRAPPLE   X  04:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

"the director cut twenty minutes of footage from the film, bringing its length from 100 minutes to 89." -> I think this needs to be made more clear.
 * Hmm. Source definitely gives twenty minutes, so I removed the "100 minutes" bit and just phrased it as cutting 20, to bring it to 89. GRAPPLE   X  04:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Reception

Are the thoughts of an "anonymous reviewer" for Film4 notable enough? If so, can't the significance be better established in the article than "An anonymous review by Film4"? Does Film4 exclusively publish anonymous reviews? For what is a classic film there should be more notable reviewers. For example, in the review for the soundtrack by Pitchfork Media, Mark Richardson himself cites Eraserhead as a "surreal 1977 cult film masterpiece."
 * All of the reviews on Film4's site are anonymous; however the company themselves are definitely notable and reputable enough (they're one of, if not the single biggest film production companies in the UK; imagine a company about the size of at-their-peak Miramax offering film revews. I could rephrase it to remove the focus on the anonymous nature of the review, though; I had initially phrased it that way to avoid attributing a statement to a company rather than an individual but perhaps just omitting the "anonymous" bit would lessen that jarring feeling. I could definitely source up another good review or two if you feel more is better, but I'd be loathe to drop Film4 as it gives a bit of international reception from a reputable source. GRAPPLE   X  04:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Legacy

Small typo: "Jack Fisk later directed episodes of Lynch's 1992 television series On the Air,[63]," has a comma before and after the reference.
 * Killed it so dead, it didn't even move. GRAPPLE   X  04:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments; I'll start sourcing up another review or two (given how much the French love David Lynch I'll see if one of their larger newspapers maybe has something to broaden the reception further), and I'll add an image of the child. Should it complement or replace the rabbit? GRAPPLE  X  04:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Image changed from rabbit to File:Eraserhead baby.jpg; one more review added. Will look for a second to add. GRAPPLE   X  05:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that the Oldeon reference doesn't link to anything. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Got it; should have been "Olson". GRAPPLE   X  13:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Excellent changes; note though, I think "initially opening to little interest/fanfare", or "initially opening to the indifference to large/most audiences" or something like that, but it's up to you. Even "initially opening to small audiences" would suffice. Specific phrasing isn't really something the GA criteria makes a big deal out of, so I'll just go ahead and pass it. If you consider nominating it for FA I think that would come up however. But all is fine here. Bruce Campbell (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)