Talk:Quentin Tarantino/GA1

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

Reviewer: Colin M (talk · contribs) 04:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Preliminary review with more detailed comments (on issues that have mostly since been resolved) are below.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Two MoS issues: 1. I think the Portal bar should go lower down, per MOS:ORDER. 2. The awards section should have a bit of text summarizing the main article, per WP:SS.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * See the "Statements needing citations" section below.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * To achieve the "comprehensive coverage" requirement of FA, I think the "Influences and style of filmmaking" would just need to be beefed up.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Just one sentence that has a problem with neutral wording: "Tarantino further infuriated the veteran journalist with his furious rant". I'm still ambivalent about having a "Controversies" section, and would strongly recommend trying to integrate its content into other parts of the article in the future (cf. WP:STRUCTURE). But I'll admit the actual coverage of the topics within that section is even-handed, so it's not a blocker for GA.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Not necessary for GA, but a greater variety of images would definitely be nice. Right now 5/6 of the images in the article are photos of QT from around 2007 to present. If you were able to find any appropriately licensed photos of QT from, say, pre-2000, I think that would be a boon. Also, one or two more images depicting something other than QT himself would be welcome (e.g. in the "Influences and style of filmmaking").
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Hi, let me just start by saying this is my first GA review, so I'm still learning the process. If you think any of my comments are out of scope of the good article criteria, let me know. Preliminary review below.

On the whole, I think this article is in a pretty good state. There are four problem areas that I think would need to be improved for it to meet the GA criteria (which I'll elaborate on shortly):
 * 1) The lead is a bit too long.
 * 2) Some of the "Controversies" content is undersourced, and some of it would benefit from merging into a different part of the article.
 * 3) The lead makes some great points about his film-making style which are never elaborated on in the body.
 * 4) The long series of lists that dominate the second half of the article. Per WP:SUMMARY and WP:LENGTH, I think some of it should be split into a separate article. Some of it should be removed or turned into prose.

1. Intro length
MOS:LEADLENGTH recommends generally no more than 4 paragraphs for the lead. This article is at exactly four, and the middle two are quite long. I think it could benefit from some trimming.

Consider removing the plot summaries of individual films from the lead. Reservoir Dogs has no description of its content, and Pulp Fiction is just described as "a black comedy crime film". I think these are fine. But later films get more description, e.g. Inglourious Basterds, which tells the fictional alternate history story of two plots to assassinate Nazi Germany's political leadership or His eighth film, the mystery-Western The Hateful Eight, was released in its roadshow version December 25, 2015, in 70 mm film format, complete with opening "overture" and halfway-point intermission, after the fashion of big-budget films of the 1960s and early 1970s. Similarly, I think something like It became the highest-grossing film of his career thus far, making over $425 million at the box office. is a detail that could be excised from the lead.


 * Agreed. I've condensed the lead based on your suggestions, plus other minor clean up. –  Broccoli  &#38; Coffee (Oh hai)

2. Controversies
To start, I'll note that WP:CSECTION advises against "Controversies" sections in general. That's not a mark against GA status (I'm sure there are lots of Good Articles that have such sections), but I think the points in that essay are relevant, particularly the uneasy tension between a "Controversies" section and WP:NPOV. I think merging some of these subsections into other parts of the article would be salutary both in terms of NPOV, and having a more natural flow.

(FWIW, I was curious enough to spot-check a bunch of biographical featured articles, and I didn't find any that had a "Controversies" or "Criticism" section, even on articles where you might expect one like Walt Disney, Janet Jackson, Courtney Love, Evelyn Waugh, etc. Take that for what you will.)

Anyways, some comments on specific subsections below...


 * I don't think there are sufficient citations in this section to establish that any substantial controversy exists here. The 1996 quote is cited, but there's no indication that what he said was controversial or widely discussed. Same story with the second paragraph (though perhaps some of this content could be merged into the "Influences and style of filmmaking" section, where his depictions of violence are discussed).
 * I mostly agree, and I've removed the 1996 quote after searching online for some sense of controversy surrounding the quote and being unable to find one. I've slightly expanded the rest of the gun violence section and added additional references. I'm not opposed to ultimately removing this altogether, but "guns in media" has traditionally been a polarizing issue, and Tarantino standing on both sides of the debates (he's pro-gun control, but also makes extremely violent films) certainly creates controversy, at least a minor one. I'm welcome to further conversation on the subject, though. –  Broccoli  &#38; Coffee (Oh hai)
 * Looking at the current state of the section, I feel like most of the content (his use of violence in his films, his opinion on whether violence in media causes violent behaviour, and his reaction to Sandy Hook) is already covered organically in other places. I feel like this section could be safely deleted. Not a GA requirement though, just my opinion. Colin M (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at the current state of the section, I feel like most of the content (his use of violence in his films, his opinion on whether violence in media causes violent behaviour, and his reaction to Sandy Hook) is already covered organically in other places. I feel like this section could be safely deleted. Not a GA requirement though, just my opinion. Colin M (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I think this content is more appropriate for The Hateful Eight (and indeed it seems to already be covered there).
 * Agreed and done. –  Broccoli  &#38; Coffee (Oh hai)
 * Agreed and done. –  Broccoli  &#38; Coffee (Oh hai)


 * Could the content of these two subsections be merged into ? (There's also a mention at the end of the "Career" section of him severing ties with Weinstein, which could possibly be expanded)
 * I've merged the Thurman section into the Weinstein section. Ultimately, this section could be moved to a different part of the article, but for now I would think that while a Controversy section does exist, this would be the most appropriate place in the article. If we eventually decide to remove the Controversy section altogether, then let's cross that bridge then? –  Broccoli  &#38; Coffee (Oh hai)
 * Could the content of these two subsections be merged into ? (There's also a mention at the end of the "Career" section of him severing ties with Weinstein, which could possibly be expanded)
 * I've merged the Thurman section into the Weinstein section. Ultimately, this section could be moved to a different part of the article, but for now I would think that while a Controversy section does exist, this would be the most appropriate place in the article. If we eventually decide to remove the Controversy section altogether, then let's cross that bridge then? –  Broccoli  &#38; Coffee (Oh hai)


 * This seems like the only one that truly stands as a bona fide controversy deserving of its own section. That said, it could perhaps be nested under "Influences and style of filmmaking", since this is a controversy revolving around a distinctive recurring element of his films.
 * With regards to this section's content, I think it could present the issue to the reader more clearly by providing some more context. Which of QT's films have used the slur under discussion (/which films originally prompted this controversy)? When did Spike Lee raise the issue?
 * With regards to the first bullet point, I'd say moving the racial slurs section necessarily depends on if the "Controversy" section is kept as a whole or not. My vote would be to keep it, but I'm also not strongly attached. For now, I'll leave "racial slurs" where it is. I have, however, as you bring up in the 2nd bullet point, clarified a few points and provided another source. –  Broccoli  &#38; Coffee (Oh hai)
 * With regards to the first bullet point, I'd say moving the racial slurs section necessarily depends on if the "Controversy" section is kept as a whole or not. My vote would be to keep it, but I'm also not strongly attached. For now, I'll leave "racial slurs" where it is. I have, however, as you bring up in the 2nd bullet point, clarified a few points and provided another source. –  Broccoli  &#38; Coffee (Oh hai)

3. Filmmaking style
I really love the first paragraph of the intro starting from the second sentence:

But per WP:SUMMARY, each of the points summarized in the lead should be detailed in the article. Some of the features in the above paragraph are discussed at, but it seems like the following get no attention in the body:
 * nonlinear storylines
 * extended scenes of dialogue
 * use of lesser-known performers. (I think it's probably also worth mentioning his notoriety for effective casting of actors whose stars had faded, e.g. Robert Forster, Pam Grier, David Carradine, and especially John Travolta, whose career he's said to have revived)
 * references to pop culture and other films
 * "soundtracks primarily containing songs and score pieces from the 1960s to the 1980s"

I think these could be expanded on in (which should probably be broken into subsections).


 * Ok, I've made several changes to this section and added new sources. –  Broccoli  &#38; Coffee (Oh hai)

4. Tables
This last one is a bit of a doozy. I think there's a readability issue towards the end of the article. Starting from up until the references, the article content is almost entirely lists and tables - about 5-6 screen lengths worth on my monitor. I think some of this content should be split into a separate article, and some should probably be prosified/removed.

As a Tarantino fan, this is interesting to me. As a Wikipedia editor, it makes me leery. One big concern I have with it is readability. I can tell effort has been taken to make it compact (e.g. by reducing font size), but it's unreadable on mobile and takes up most of the screen when viewed on a 1920x1080 display. If Tarantino directs one more movie and we need to add another column, it's going to explode. See Martin_Scorsese for an example where this goes off the rails. My other issue is whether it constitutes unnecessary detail. Do we really need a list of every actor who has appeared in more than one QT film in his article? Including actors like Bo Svenson who apparently only appeared in minor roles/cameos? Finally, there's a WP:OR angle - it may be verifiably true that, e.g. Laura Cayouette appeared in two QT films, but lacking a source talking about their work together, is it OR to describe them as "frequent collaborator" or imply they have some kind of special relationship?

Apparently Christopher Nolan (which is a GA) used to have such a table, but consensus was to remove it. You can find the discussion here.

My recommendation would be to remove the table, and summarize its key aspects in prose. The first paragraph of actually does a good job of this already. You could add to it, or just leave it as is.


 * Agreed and done. I don't like these types of tables in general, so this is a good excuse to address it. I've added a couple lines of prose to the section, and removed the table. –  Broccoli  &#38; Coffee (Oh hai)

This section is a slog to scroll through. Per WP:SUMMARY, I think this would be a good candidate for splitting into a separate article like List of awards and nominations received by Quentin Tarantino. This seems like a pretty common practice for prolific artists who have been nominated for lots of awards. If you do so, I would also merge "Other lifetime honors" into it.
 * I've moved this to List of awards and nominations received by Quentin Tarantino. –  Broccoli  &#38; Coffee (Oh hai)

Again, while I personally find this interesting, I think it's an excessive level of detail for his Wikipedia article. The most important award wins and noms as well as the general critical reception of each film are already given in the "Career" section when talking about the film. If I want to know precisely how many Oscars/BAFTAs a particular film won or was nominated for, I can go to its article. If you did create List of awards and nominations received by Quentin Tarantino, there's perhaps an argument for including this information there, though it seems a bit WP:INDISCRIMINATE to me.
 * Done. –  Broccoli  &#38; Coffee (Oh hai)

Basically ditto the above. If this table were to be preserved somewhere, I think it would be a better fit for Quentin Tarantino filmography. For example, Seth Rogen filmography has a section dedicated to critical reception of his major works, Woody Allen filmography has columns for boc office gross and Rotten Tomatoes score.
 * Done –  Broccoli  &#38; Coffee (Oh hai)

This list is short and interesting, but:
 * 1) there's a minor wording issue with the phrase "Academy Award performance". "Directed Academy Award nominated performances" would be more accurate, though wordy. I'd consider whether you can arrange it so that it's introduced with a sentence of prose, rather than a heading (unless anyone can think of less awkward wording).
 * Done –  Broccoli  &#38; Coffee (Oh hai)


 * 1) It seems like a bit of a non-sequitur appearing in the "Filmography" section. Perhaps a better fit for the "Awards" section? (Or the awards article, if you agree with my proposal to split)

I had some other thoughts, but they're more along the lines of suggested improvements rather than strict requirements for GA, and I've already written a lot, so I'll stop here for now. Colin M (talk) 04:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! I'll begin going through it this week/weekend and will respond back here soon. Cheers –  Broccoli  &#38; Coffee (Oh hai) 05:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Several changes (comments above) done. Will continue this tomorrow. –  Broccoli  &#38; Coffee (Oh hai) 06:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Awesome, appreciate the quick turnaround! Adding two more sections below. Colin M (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Acting roles and due weight in
In some places in the section, I felt that some time was spent describing work (especially acting roles) that wasn't particularly significant or noteworthy in the context of his career.

This mostly happens in the subsection. For example:
 * Also in 1992, he played an asylum attendant in Jeff Burr's Eddie Presley starring Duane Whitaker in the title role.
 * He had a cameo appearance in Sleep With Me, an American comedy-drama film starring Meg Tilly, Eric Stoltz and Craig Sheffer. The film was screened in the Un Certain Regard section at the 1994 Cannes Film Festival. He also played the role of a bartender in Somebody to Love directed by Alexandre Rockwell. It entered the competition at the 51st Venice International Film Festival.
 * In 1995, he appeared as Desmond in one episode of All-American Girl. Shortly after, Tarantino appeared in Destiny Turns on the Radio, an American comedy film, with Dylan McDermott, Nancy Travis, James LeGros, and James Belushi.

The paragraph about his acting credits in 1994 is longer than the paragraph that talks about Pulp Fiction! I would trim a lot of the mentions of his acting roles, unless you can justify why they were significant in the context of his career. (e.g. if it was his first acting role, if he played a major part, if his acting was nominated for any awards or commented on by critics, etc.)

Another option I really like is to have a separate subsection specifically about his career as an actor (similar to the subsection you have now). I would still try to winnow down the specific roles discussed to ones that are particularly interesting or significant, but it would be a good opportunity to also discuss some general aspects of QT as an actor, e.g.:
 * Has his acting work been generally well received by critics?
 * Are there any hallmarks to his acting style? Is he known for playing certain types of characters?
 * The fact that he's sometimes acted in his own films


 * I completely agree about the acting comments. Those were all added in after my initial GA nomination, and I went back and forth with the editor who added these at that time. I just went through and trimmed the acting notes and put them together. You suggested its own subsection, but I don't even think there's enough to make that necessary. –  Broccoli  &#38; Coffee (Oh hai)
 * FYI, I also removed a few mentions of minor acting roles from later sections (2000s and 2010s). I still like the idea of having a dedicated acting section, but I don't think it's a requirement for GA. (Unlike FA which requires "comprehensive coverage", GA only requires "broad coverage"). But just for fun, I might take a stab at adding an acting section at some point later. Colin M (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Awkward essay-like prose in
I found almost all the writing in this article to be tremendously clear and concise. The only exception are a few places in the that use some overly florid language that obscure the idea being expressed:
 * Tarantino often manipulates the use of commodities in order to propel plot development or to present an intriguing juxtaposition that ultimately enhances his notorious combination of humor and violence, equating a branded genre with branded consumption. He often pairs bizarre props with an equally bizarre scene, in which the prop itself develops into something of higher substance.
 * Tarantino often uses graphic violence that has proven seductive to audiences, and he has been harshly criticized for his use of gore and blood in an entrancing yet simultaneously repulsive way. His films have been staunchly criticized and scorned for their use of violence, blood and action as a "color" within cinema, and rebuked for allegedly using human suffering as a punchline.
 * He often seeks to harness, manipulate and ultimately imitate the aesthetic elements and conventions typically used in the cartoon medium. More specifically, he often attempts to meld comic strip formulas and aesthetics within a live action film sequence, in some cases by the literal use of cartoon or anime images. Tarantino's cinematic ambition to marry artistic expression via live action and cartoonism is yet another example of his ability to morph genres and conventions to produce a new and authentic style of his own.

Also, all of these seem to be cited to niche academic papers (with single-digit citations). If you think there's a valuable kernel of information in any of these, I would try to rewrite them in plain English and find better sources. Colin M (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I've trimmed this as well and found more sources for some of the analysis. –  Broccoli  &#38; Coffee (Oh hai)
 * Looking good. I just did a pass over this section as well and made some trims and wording changes. Even now, I think this is probably the section with the most potential for improvement. The prose is still awkward in places, the flow from topic to topic is a bit jerky, and I think there are lots of topics that could be added or elaborated on. But at this point, I don't think there's anything in the section that would block GA status. Colin M (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Statements needing citations
According to WP:GACR, citations are needed for "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons".

The following statistics need citations:
 * The film has grossed over $200 million and was met with critical acclaim.
 * In 2004, he brought the Chinese martial arts film Hero to U.S. shores. It ended up having a No. 1 opening at the box office and making $53.5 million. In 2006, another "Quentin Tarantino presents" production, Hostel, opened at No. 1 at the box office with a $20.1 million opening weekend, good for 8th all time in January.

This quote needs to be sourced: By 1997, Miramax had shut down the company due to "lack of interest" in the pictures released.

I think there's also a sourcing issue with this:

There's one reference given for all this. That link establishes the fact that a $5M lawsuit was filed, but it does not establish: Colin M (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that the assault actually occurred. (Are there news stories that establish this as fact? Was there a police report? Did QT admit to it? If no, should probably be described as an alleged assault.)
 * The fact that the lawsuit was settled out of court

Changes
Hi, I believe I've addressed most or all of the issues you've presented. Most I've made changes to, though a few comments above on sections where I either didn't fully agree, or wasn't quite clear on. I'd very much appreciate another look over, when you can. Thanks so much for taking this on. Cheers –  Broccoli  &#38; Coffee (Oh hai) 05:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I added a review template to the top of the page with some remaining blockers for GA. It's mostly pretty minor stuff - I think we're really close! Colin M (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Great, thank you! I'm going away for the weekend, but I'll get back to this on Monday. Thanks again. Cheers –  Broccoli  &#38; Coffee (Oh hai) 20:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi - I've addressed the issues raised on the review template, including further sources where requested, some additional copyedits, and various clean up. Let me know if you think I've missed anything not discussed. Cheers –  Broccoli  &#38; Coffee  (Oh hai) 05:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Changes look great. GA it is! Congrats. Colin M (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)