Talk:Primer (film)/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Primer (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

OK, so the article's looking pretty good right now. A few things, though, before it'll pass: Alrighty, I think that's just about it. Give us a holler if you've got any questions or issues – you've got a week to make approprate changes to the article and hopefully it'll be passed! Good luck :) — 97198   talk  09:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "The film stars Carruth as Aaron, and David Sullivan as Abe" -> no need for comma.
 * "Primer is notable for its extremely low budget..." -> the word 'notable' just sounds a little POV-ish and kinda weird. I couldn't think of a better word, but then I'm terrible with synonyms. Anything you can think of?
 * "before receiving a limited release in cinemas" -> one doesn't 'receive' a release... maybe reword to something like 'opened in limited release...'
 * "engineers — Aaron (Shane Carruth), Abe (David Sullivan), Robert, and Phillip — work" -> dashes shouldn't have spaces on either side.
 * "run a side business out of Aaron's garage at night designing" -> maybe a comma before 'designing' for better flow.
 * The last two sentences of the plot synopsis seem to be tacked onto the end and don't really fit. Up until that point, everything seems to be a chronological recount of events but then it advances into overarching themes and incidental detail about paradoxes which doesn't seem to fit anywhere else. And does the story end there, just like that, or is there some sort of greater climax? If so, don't skip on including it.
 * The first of the two sentences (the second-last of the section) is probably better included with the other themes, if you can stick a source on it. Would also bulk up the themes section a bit, which only currently consists of two quotes.
 * In themes section, first blockquote contains quotation marks while second doesn't. I'd say go for them in both.
 * "The time machine itself is a plain grey box" -> don't Americans spell it 'gray'? If it's an American film, it should use US spelling.
 * "created by juxtaposing the sounds of a mechanical grinder and a car engine" -> is this mixing the sounds? 'Jusxtaposition' doesn't seem to be the right word here.
 * "industrial parks and suburban tract homes which he had been so familiar with in his previous career" -> his formal career, meaning a mathematician/engineer? Why was he familiar with these environments from being a mathematician/engineer? Doesn't make sense to me; either needs some explaining or just remove sentence content from 'which' onwards.
 * "It was produced with a budget of only USD $7,000[5]," -> citation goes after punctuation.
 * "The extremely low shooting ratio of 2:1 meant that the number of takes had to be strictly limited,[4] and with no room for mistakes, every shot in the film was meticulously storyboarded on 35mm stills.[4]" -> both halves of sentence are cited to ref 4 so there's no need to have the first one in there.
 * Link Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes and maybe explain their purpose as review aggregators. Check out most other GA or FA film articles for an example, it's pretty simple.
 * List the journalist with the publication, i.e. "Dennis Lim of The Village Voice". Should be done with all occurrences.
 * No full-stops (periods) necessary to end each bullet in the awards section.
 * "The operation of time travel in Primer" -> italics for film title.
 * "Abe and Aaron (right), test their experimental superconductor" -> do we need to know Aaron's on the right? There are only two of them in the picture, and IMO it's pretty hard to get them mixed up in the image if their names are correctly ordered in the caption. And even if we did have a directional prod, wouldn't it make more sense to say 'Abe (left) and Aaron test...' Also, no comma needed in current version.
 * "Carruth took two years to fully post-produce Primer" -> italics for film title.
 * References should be in 2 columns using.


 * Ok, great, I'll get on it. JMalky (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of those changes have been made, I'll finish off the other ones later. I think I'm the only person editing the page at the moment, but if any one else is watching this page or planning on editing it, I've put a list of what has/hasn't been altered on my drafts userpage. JMalky (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I probably could've just put strikethroughs on the list above... not sure what the exceptions to the 'don't edit comments' rule are. JMalky (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it bothers some people but I'm happy if you want to strike out what you've done, though there's probably not much point now if you've got your own page with the list. And sorry to be picky, but it'd be really great if you could try and get stuff done kind of soon, because I'm going away on Friday (though with Australia-America time differences it may as well be Thursday night, Wikipedia time) and I won't be back for a month... Again, sorry, and thanks. No pressure :) — 97198   talk  06:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've made the changes you've suggested. But if you think it needs any further alterations then I'll get them done ASAP. JMalky (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I realise that the plot section still isn't perfect, but the trouble is that the movie is so damned complex and open to interpretation! If you take a look further up this talk page, you'll see that arguments abound over the exact chain of events, what x and y meant, how the time machine works etc etc. Perhaps it's best to aim for a passage that outlines the arc of the story without getting into too much detail. JMalky (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Everything looks great to me. Thanks for hopping on that so quickly; I think we're good to got for a pass :) — 97198   talk  15:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent article, I think, and the proofreading tips are constructive. Just one quibble though: Is there really a rule stating that articles about American films must use American spelling? By that same logic, Americans writing articles about British films would presumably be required to switch to British spelling? This seems like an arbitrary and unnecessary rule and one that could rapidly devolve into absurdity. (Imagine an article comparing a British film and an American film where the author feels obligated to switch the spelling of words like honour/honor, grey/gray, etc. in mid-paragraph in order to adhere to the same spelling conventions used by the director and producer of the respective films or the characters in them.) This might set a truly bizarre precedent. But again, it's just a small point. Good work on the article. Mardiste (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)