Talk:Inglourious Basterds/GA1

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

Reviewer: HJMitchell    You rang?   20:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's start at the beginning.
 * Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarise the contents of the body which, as far as i can tell, it doesn't. ✅
 * Some of the rose is weak and could do with a little work


 * Title
 * Major lack of references ✅ Every sentence is now referenced
 * "both the former and the latter" is a completely redundant phrase ✅ Removed
 * consistency with italics- the film title should always be in , but you might need to change other punctuation to fit it ✅


 * Plot
 * The plot summary is way too long- it needs to be savagely trimmed and those subsections need to come out ✅ I've removed the subsections and found references for them. I've also edited/cut down the plot summary. Cut plot down further and added ref for quote at the end.
 * again, lack of refs for large chunks of information ✅ I've referenced the chapter titles and the quote.

"Actor X played Character Y; X previously did..." ✅ I haven't found a site confirming the spelling, but in everything I've read so far her name is spelt 'Shosanna'. - JuneGloom07    Talk?  20:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Cast
 * This section is seriously confused. Keep it to a nice simple:
 * You're probably giving Brad Pitt undue weight ✅
 * All references to the heroine Shosanna need to be corrected to Shoshanna —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derek Braithwaite (talk • contribs) 15:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Exhibition
 * Lack of refs ✅


 * References
 * I won't insist on cite templates, but each and every reference will require (where applicable) URL, title, publication date, publisher and retrieval date ✅
 * I will insist that you use only one method for the citations rather than chopping and changing.

My talk page is open for any queries. HJMitchell   You rang?   14:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I like what I see- you're doing good work, though there's a way to go. The subheadings in the cast section make the contents look unsightly- you can put a semicolon in front of a title on a new line

to distinguish it from surrounding text without resorting to using ======. ✅ Also, you might find WP:FILMPLOT useful in dealing with that plot summary, which should be concise and encyclopaedic. There are other points, but one thing a time! HJMitchell   You rang?   20:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * like this

24/01
There has been a lot of progress but there are still huge chinks of information which lack refs. There's little point focusing on other things until every fact that is not as obvious as "the sky is blue" has a reference. Also, the plot section is still huge and needs to be massively trimmed. ✅ Try working on those, using similar articles already at GA as a guide. HJ Mitchell |  fancy a chat?   22:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Is the construction on improving the article going to be done soon? Been a month since the review started. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 14:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. I know HJ is a busy guy at the moment, but he mentioned that he will be looking at the article very soon. I'm also hoping the construction on improving the article will be done soon, it's been hard work! :) - JuneGloom07    Talk?  14:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I do apologise for the delay, I've been busy elsewhere. I'm afraid I'm too tired at the minute, but hopefully tomorrow I should be able to take another proper look at the article and give some feedback. It's coming on nicely, so I'm nhopeful we should be able to close this in the near future. HJ Mitchell  |  fancy a chat?   21:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

To keep you occupied
The only relations to the 1978 film (The Inglorious Bastards) is the title, which is already mentioned at the bottom of Development and writing section, and the director (Enzo Castellari) making a cameo, which is also mentioned in 'casting'. - JuneGloom07    Talk?  15:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the relation, if any, with the 1970s film?
 * The lead could still do with a little work- think of it is a 3 paragraph summary of the article rather than an introduction
 * I'd still like to see the plot trimmed- it seems to be taking up a disproportionate amount of room ✅
 * I'm going through this... I'm not good at trimming the plot, I may hack too much. LOL — Mike   Allen   20:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to move this out of the plot "Inglourious Basterds unfolds over five chapters: Once upon a time... In Nazi-Occupied France; Inglourious Basterds; A German Night in Paris; Operation Kino and Revenge of the Giant Face. "

Maybe it can be moved somewhere else? — Mike   Allen   20:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's now at 656 words. —  Mike   Allen   20:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You did a good job, you didn't hack it too much. :) Not sure where in the article the chapter titles can go though. Do you mind if I add the quote at the end back in? - JuneGloom07    Talk?  21:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't, but the guidelines do. :( Adding that back will make it go over 700 words (WP:PLOT says 400-700 words).  Maybe we can remove something else and then add it back?  —  Mike   Allen   21:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's beneficial to have it in the article. Two suggestions: IAR or put it in the lead. HJ Mitchell  |  Penny for your thoughts?   21:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The quote only adds 8 more words - proclaiming that "this just might be my masterpiece". . I think the Gestapo Major Dieter Hellstrom (August Diehl) bit needs to be trimmed too, he's not a big character and in that sentence it's not necessary to have his name there. - JuneGloom07    Talk?  21:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I need to know my role. HJ is the reviewer, not me.  I'm sorry.  But about the reference, why is it needed?  Usually references in plots are only needed if there's something controversial, and the website cited doesn't quote that saying? Also I am so embarrassed that I left the year in the plot as "In the spring of 1994".   I was changing it around and when I typed it I must have (obviously) added 199.   —  Mike   Allen   23:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought the quote needed to be referenced, can't remember if I read that or I'm making it up, lol. I'll have a look. The first sentence in the ref says: 'It's been suggested that we're expected to take Brad Pitt's final line in Inglourious Basterds as the director's comment on his film. "I think this just might be my masterpiece"'. I didn't see that you had typed the wrong year. It seems like something I would have done at some point too, so don't worry about it. - JuneGloom07    Talk?  23:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I changed it, not sure if it's better though. - JuneGloom07    Talk?  17:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In the development section:
 * "more than a decade" should be specified if possible
 * "too precious about the page" needs a citation- all direct quotes require inline citations for GA ✅
 * Try to be a bit more sparing with the use of [] in quotes ✅ I reworked the sentences and quotes. - JuneGloom07    Talk?  17:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll be back later today/ tomorrow to check on progress and give you more to work on. We're certainly getting very close to meeting the GA criteria so with a little more work, it should be there! Best, HJ Mitchell  |  Penny for your thoughts?   13:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The prose is a bit choppy in the "Pre-production and filming" section- a few short sentences that could be copyedited. ✅
 * Was it released in any other countries on DVD? If so, a number would be good. Also, UK should be expanded to "United Kingdom"


 * Other than the above, I'm quite happy with this, the progress has been excellent since the review started and GA is most definitely within reach. This could be addressed with an hour or two of work so it would be good to close this by the end of the month, but I'll leave it open as long as it needs to be. As ever, I'm around if I'm needed. HJ Mitchell  |  Penny for your thoughts?   21:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you think more counties (such as Germany) should be covered in the Box office section, and a more detailed breakdown of the weeks? The-Numbers has some great international coverage.  Also should the DVD sales be mentioned in the Home Media section. ?  Thanks. —  Mike   Allen   23:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * there's no need to name every country in which it was released, but a number would be informative "...Was released in X countries including..." and something similar for the box office.
 * In the box office section, again, I would not go into excessive detail but note those countries in which it did particularly well )maybe the top 5?) and the US and Germany (and any other notable/interesting places) if they're not in the top 5. HJ Mitchell  |  Penny for your thoughts?   04:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Ok what about the DVD sales, will it help the GAR? —  Mike   Allen   05:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It certainly wouldn't harm it. Just go with a little information on how it did and where. HJ Mitchell  |  Penny for your thoughts?   13:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrapping this up
I have some issues with the refs:
 * I'm concerned about the reliability of references #15, 16 and 98 ✅ Replaced, removed and removed. - JuneGloom07    Talk?  20:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm also concerned that a lot of offline newspaper articles are being used as refs. Do you have access to those source to confirm they verify the information? Ideally, it would be good to do a Google News archive search to see if you can dog up something online. ✅
 * I've been through the article and replaced or removed the offline refs. Only No.9 is left and I'm having trouble finding a replacement for it. - JuneGloom07    Talk?  23:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * June did you get all the offline newspapers? I can't find any in the refs.  Also, I thought CommingSoon.net was reliable?  —  Mike   Allen   00:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I got all of the offline refs, except No.9. I was just following HJ's first point with CommingSoon.net, it was ref No.98. If it's reliable then feel free to add it back. - JuneGloom07    Talk?  01:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The publisher field in the cite templates for refs #8 and 9 at least is wrong- it should be the publishing company, not the owner ✅ for ref 9 — Mike   Allen   21:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I replaced No.8. - JuneGloom07    Talk?  23:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Why is #3 hyperlinked? It should be a wikilink or plain text ✅
 * Because The-Numbers has no Wikipedia article and I've read that if it doesn't it is OK to hyperlink to their About us page. I know I've read this.. I'm looking for the documentation.  —  Mike   Allen   21:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CITEHOW: "name of the website (linked to a Wikipedia article about the site if it exists, or to Website's "about page")"  Should we not be linking to the "about us" page within citations? I've been doing this for a while, is why I ask. —  Mike   Allen   00:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm very happy with this and once those things are corrected, I can't see anything holding me back from promoting it. You should be consistent with linking in refs, though. I won't hold you to that for GA but it would be good to correct it, especially if you want to take this further. HJ Mitchell |  Penny for your thoughts?   20:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, just when you think you've seen all the guidelines...! It's not something I would do, but I won't hold back the GAN because of it, especially not if it's written in a guideline. I'll take a final look to check everything's in order and then I should be able to promote it! HJ Mitchell  |  Penny for your thoughts?   01:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, assuming no nasty surprises come up, I'm going to promote this tomorrow (by which I mean after I've had some sleep). I'm hoping I can get an AWB check for any formatting/syntax problems and I need to have a proper read through when I'm fully awake. HJ Mitchell  |  Penny for your thoughts?   01:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)