Talk:Groundhog Day (film)/GA1

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

Reviewer: 3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk · contribs) 18:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Assessment
A really strong article. A lot of effort was invested in this. I will try to go into some minor details shortly before the outcome.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Observation

 * I would switch the "Analysis" and "Production" sections. By logic, "Production" should go first, followed by an analysis of the film.

Thematic analysis

 * "In the bowling alley scene, Phil asks two Punxsutawney residents if they understand what it is like to be stuck in a place where nothing they do matters. He is referring to his own trapped situation, but the two men understand the feeling from their own repetitive and seemingly meaningless lives". The NYT source for this goes like this: "The two strangers listen very sympathetically. They didn't have to be trapped by a magic spell to know what he means". Is it therefore justified to extrapolate that they have "repetitive and seemingly meaningless lives"? I think the text should be closer to the original review by Janet Maslin.

Writing

 * "Columbia Pictures re-hired Rubin to assess the script and provide notes". I did not get the idea that he was fired in the first place. I assumed that he worked all the time on the script, without a need to "re-hire" him. I would wish that this could be clarified.

Filming

 * "The budget was reported to be between $14.6 million and $30 million". Source No. 1, Variety, mentions a $28 million budget. Maybe it should be removed in this sentence, since the movie was still being filmed at the time and the budget was not yet fixed.

Critical Reception

 * "The tone was described as inconsistent, and the film poorly paced, with some scenes going on too long". Source No. 90 for this, Variety, is peculiarly dated as 31 December 1992, before the movie was released. How can this be? Is it an error in the date?
 * "Siskel said that she lit up the screen when she was on". There is no source for this sentence.

Lasting critical reception

 * "...was listed as the third funniest on the WGA's 101 Funniest Screenplays list, positioning it behind Some Like It Hot (1958) and Annie Hall (1977)". The source for this, No. 147, does not lead to the said list, but just re-directs to the generic WGA.org website.

Sequels and adaptations

 * Maybe just condense to "Adaptations"?

Conclusion
I think the article meets the GA criteria. I'm promoting it, accordingly.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 07:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Firstly, thanks for taking the time to do this review!
 * RE: The analysis quote. Is "He is referring to his own trapped situation, but the two men are sympathetic to his plight without being trapped in their own loop." better?
 * Rubin wasn't fired, his work was just done as he'd sold his script. I'll see if I can clarify that better.
 * RE: the variety review. There is a similar situation with Variety and Die Hard, their review is from January 1988. So I don't know if they were reviewing early screenings or it's a flaw in the site design/setup.
 * RE: the budget. I see your point but I like to have the back up source there if anyone challenges it.
 * I've included all my edits based on your comments here Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "He is referring to his own trapped situation, but the two men are sympathetic to his plight without being trapped in their own loop." Yes, that would be better. As for the budget, maybe you can write something like "...by June 1992, the budget was reported to be $28 million while the movie was still in post-production". The Variety review is odd, but I guess we cannot challenge the date of their own articles.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 06:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)