Talk:James Dean (2001 film)/GA1

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

Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. Although it is a generally good article, it does have some problems with the prose. I did some copy editing to try to fix some of them. I also put in the url's for the newspaper articles. Below are my initial comments. I may add more later. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 22:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC) Examples of prose problems
 * Comments
 * "but realizes his father, Winton, begins to show a sudden lack of love for him." - he can not "begin to" show a "sudden" lack of love, as that doesn't make sense
 * Fixed, I think. Wildroot (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Whitmore is astonished" - "astonished" is too dramatic for a biography
 * Fixed. Wildroot (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "James' emotional mindset becomes more aggressive when he starts acting like a jerk to director George Stevens." - this language is too informal for an encyclopedia; also, I am not sure what you mean.
 * Fixed. Wildroot (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Angered with his life, James decides to conflict with his father once more" - grammatically incorrect - he decides to fight with his father? to clash with his father? to have conflict with his father? (this last is too clunky).
 * Fixed, I think. Wildroot (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Other problems
 * The article has too many wikilinks to common words; also, wikilink once, maybe twice (once in the lead and again in the article body) to the same link. See: Manual of Style (links)
 * I fixed some of the wikilinking problems with general terms, but WP:MOS still says it's okay to link the characters in the Plot and Cast sections. For example, see The Dark Knight (although it's a comic book movie, not a biopic, but still...) Wildroot (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you need to be clear that this is a biopic, and not necessarily the true story of Dean. (Were there not reviews that contrasted Dean's real life with the biopic? Was the biopic accurate? Was Dean really happy, having resolved all his problems by the time of his death?)
 * I know that this is only a movie and not a detailed depiction of Dean's life. I'm not stupid. Because this is a TV movie, it's almost impossible to find credible essays that fit under WP:RS to describe the historical liberties taken with this film. It's a miracle that I was able to find over 30 references to cite this article with. Wildroot (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did not mean to imply that. It is just that the sources you use generally seem to look at James Dean as an icon.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 00:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. Now I understand. Wildroot (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, this biopic fails to convey much sense of Dean's personality nor is impact at the time. I am not sure how articles on other biopics handle this situation.
 * It refers to James Dean being a movie star and '50s icon. What more shall we say? Wildroot (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

&mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 22:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Should he be called "James" throughout, or should he be called "Dean"? (I don't know the answer.)
 * Because this is a biopic, it is best to refer to him as James in the Plot and Cast sections. When showcasing the production of this film, calling him James Dean would be too redundant, so we should probably use that "last name rule" like other encyclopedias seem to do. Otherwise, it would be kinda awkward ("James Franco also carefully studied James' mannerisms by simultaneously watching his three films", etc.) Wildroot (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * More comments
 * "while both actors were also attached to the part." - what does this mean? (and the reference http://www.tnt.tv/movies/movietitle/?oid=585 does not mention this.)
 * Attached can mean a variety of meanings: an actor/actress who is discussions/talks for a role. It can also mean that Depp and Pitt found out they were being considered for the role, thus they told Warner Bros. that they would immediately sign on if they were offered. But Warner Bros. was more interested with Leonardo DiCaprio. Also The reference does mention that statement: Scroll to the very bottom: "Bill Gerber brought the JAMES DEAN project to TNT after several years in development at Warner Bros. Studios. During this time, many young actors were attached to star in the feature film, including Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt and Stephen Dorff." Wildroot (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Lead does not reflect the article: "James Dean also explores the studio system and policies of 1950s Hollywood."
 * I took it out. Wildroot (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * He was an A-list actor - not really. Can you find a reference for that, as A-list sounds very establishment like Jennifer Aniston or Elizabeth Taylor.
 * A-list is a term that alludes to major movie stars, and/or the most bankable in the Hollywood movie industry. It's practically that same thing as a movie star. James Dean was both. Wildroot (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * he was an icon as many of your references state, and that he became an icon after he died (at least one of your sources state) - the suddenness of his death, before he actually became famous is described in one article.
 * James Dean has always been famous ever since he starred in East of Eden. However, after his death, he became more of a pop-culture icon. He still practically carries that "bad boy" image to this day. Wildroot (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E4DB1730F934A2575AC0A9649C8B63&sec=health - this source doesn't mention Dean and I think it should be removed.
 * Sorry, I honestly don't know how that happened. I'll eventually fix this in the future. I took it out. Weird how stuff like that happens. Wildroot (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Not trying to be hard on you. I just would like to see this article become as good as it can. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 00:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Your doing great! Wildroot (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

&mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 01:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Further comments
 * A-list does not fit, unless you have a reference.
 * I removed the A-list mention. Now it is ready for GA-status. Wildroot (talk) 06:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it is close. The problem now is the article lead. Does it accurately reflect the content of the article? For example, is it a major point that "At one point, Michael Mann was set to direct with Leonardo DiCaprio starring in the lead role" that it needs to be in the lead?
 * The lead is suppose to summarize the article, and the fact that Michael Mann and DiCaprio were involved is pretty significant. Wildroot (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9900E5DE1F3AF93AA15754C0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1 is use to cite "David Thomson, writing in The New York Times, felt Franco's performance as Dean gave Baby Boomer audiences a sense of nostalgia from the 1950s decade." - This is not what the article, a vague opinion piece, says; specifically it does not mention between Baby Boomer audiences (born between 1946 and 1964), the oldest of whom would have been nine years old when Rebel Without a Cause was released in the year that Dean died, and many would not have been born yet.
 * Okay, I fixed it. Wildroot (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117850881.html?categoryid=14&cs=1 - This is used to reference "The film attracted 3.18 million viewers and received generally favorable reviews from critics" but the source says nothing about review and says 3.18 million was "attracted less than half the aud of the net's "Mists of Avalon" three weeks earlier (6.92m)", implying that was a poor showing.
 * Sorry, I must have read it wrong. Wildroot (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117863107.html?categoryid=2&cs=1 - This is a gossip column and not a reliable source.
 * Fixed. Wildroot (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

&mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 19:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE3DA103CF936A3575BC0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2 - This is a good source but it does not say that Leonardo DiCaprio's asking price was too high - rather it says that he did not want to do a TV movie.
 * Fixed. Wildroot (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please check with WikiProject Films/Style guidelines. For example, the plot should be written in a neutral manner. Phrases such as "becomes more devastating" is not neutral.
 * Prose problems mentioned above have not been fixed: eg "James begins to notice that his father has suddenly changed by showing a lack of love for his son."
 * I know you have worked hard on this article, but the trouble is that the whole issue of this biopic is meaningless without some comparision between Dean's life (or the myth regarding his life) and the biopic. When a reviewer says this biopic is a cliche, what does he mean by that? What aspect(s) of Dean's life in the biopic comes across as a cliché? (It is sort of like writing about a biopic of Nirvana's Kurt Cobain and not mentioning anything about how the biopic compares to the real person.) &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 03:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): There continue to be prose concerns as mentioned above. Examples:
 * James begins to notice that his father has suddenly changed by showing a lack of love for his son. (contradictory wording)
 * The entire situation becomes more devastating when Mildred dies. (fails to be neutral wording in plot section)
 * b (MoS): Follows MoS

Regretfully, I must fail the article. When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Most of this article is very good. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 20:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable  c (OR): No OR
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): Fails to set biopic in context of James Dean's real life and sudden death, resulting in iconic status b (focused): Remains focused on subject
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias: Plot section contains POV wording
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * Looking back at this review, I'm sorry to say that Mattisse was largely unfair. The GAN policy asks for a seven day period for the review, whereas you waited five days. I could have easily fixed the concerns within two days. Also, what's so POV over the issue of Dean being a movie star or an A-list actor. Who cares? Those two definitions are practically the same thing. I do not see how this article "fails to set biopic in context of James Dean's real life and sudden death, resulting in iconic status." It's mentioned towards the end of the Plot section, plus there's info in the Writing section that displays the historical accuracy/inaccuracy of this film. That's my rant of the day. Take with it what you want. Wildroot (talk) 03:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * James Dean was an cultural icon, as described in his article. That is the reason he was chosen to have a biographical film made about him. To fail to put the film in this context is a major flaw, in my opinion, as well as the prose problems noted. I am sorry you feel the way you do, but you can fix the problems and renominate. Or, as I suggested, have it reassessed. I noted that most of the article was very good.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 03:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think I overreacted. Wildroot (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)