Talk:Remember Last Night?/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)
 * I'm going to review this article, I've made slight edits to it before with information about external links and categories, but nothing major. I feel it's still alright for me to review the article.


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Remove the / in mystery/comedy in the intro title per MOS. Either just place a space between the genres and that should be fine.
 * Done.
 * Good. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "The film, based on the novel The Hangover Murders, is about the investigation of the murder of one of a group of friends who, because they were all too drunk, are unable to recall the events of the night of the murder." Can this be re-phrased? It could use a bit of copy-editing.
 * Reworded.
 * Good. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps add change the release date" to how it is in the infobox. Also, MOS:Film suggests to not use "," but the the break command in the writers section.
 * breaks hardcoded. I'm unclear what you mean about the date.
 * Good. I'll fix the date, sorry, should've been more clear. I left while midway typing that sentence to answer the phone. ;) Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In the plot section "Just as he is about to reveal the murderer, the professor is murdered." maybe change it to "Just as the professor is about to reveal the murder, he is murdered."
 * "Next to be killed is restaurateur Faronea. After Tony and Carlotta eavesdrop on him conferring with an accomplice at his restaurant, he discovers them.". He? Who? I think that needs to be cleared up. Also, are Faronea killed in sight? Or by an unknown assassin? Might want to make that a bit more clear.
 * "Tony bluffs that he knows about the kidnapping plot and the accomplice murders Faronea." who's the accomplace? The original murder? I'm having a bit of trouble following characters in this section.
 * "Friend Jake Whitridge (Reginald Denny) responds to a frantic telephone call from Billy and, when Tony and Danny arrive as planned moments after Jake, Jake attacks Billy and knocks him out" I'm still a bit confused what's going on here. Remove that comma after the "and" and maybe explain this more. Is this just confusing movie? I'm having a little trouble following. :)
 * The ending paragraph wraps up the murder, but who explains it? It summarizes the end but it's still a bit confusing. Is something missing here?
 * I have only seen ten minutes of the film that someone uploaded to a website and it's all from before the body is discovered, so I'm going off the cited source for the plot summary. I had to read the source three times before I understood what was going on. I will read it again and try to clarify all of these details.
 * OK. While it is a bit confusing, reading the summary should make it clear who killed whom. Jake shot Vic. Bouclier killed the professor. Bouclier, Faronea's accomplice, killed Faronea. Jake killed Bouclier. The summary states that it's Tony who announces that he's solved the crime. Since I haven't seen the film I don't know the exact circumstances of Faronea's death. I assume based on context that Tony and Carlotta did not see Faronea's accomplice at the restaurant and that Faronea was killed in sight of Tony and Carlotta but they didn't see the shooter. It does say that the accomplice killed Faronea and it says earlier that Bouclier and Faronea are conspiring to kidnap Vic so I think we're going to have to trust the reader to remember that fact.


 * Production section seems good. Perhaps re-arrange the first paragraph a bit? It could a little copy-editing to organize it a bit more. Perhaps wikilink Dracula's Daughter as well.
 * Dracula's Daughter is already linked in the first sentence.
 * Whups missed that. alright.


 * Could the cast section be expanded to say who their character is? Perhaps make it look something like the cast section in the Witchfinder General article?
 * I have found no additional information that describes who the characters are and nothing about the casting process so I don't think expansion is going to be possible here.
 * Hmm. That could be a problem. It would clear up a lot of confusion with the plot if I can know who some of these people are in relation to others. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * They're a group of friends. I don't think the relationship between them goes any deeper than friendship. No one is anyone's cousin or whatever.


 * The reception section is good. You could possibly move the release date of the film from production to "Reception" and re-title it "Release and reception" like the Eyes Without a Face article was when it first became a GA. Perhaps move the information about it failed financially as well after that then discuss the critical reception. The Allmovie website has a review of the film as well that you could include for more info on "modern reception" of the film.
 * When did they make cuts to the film? During production? After it's first showing? Is this possibly to clarify?
 * When did who make cuts? The local censorship boards? They cut the film as it was released to their area of jurisdiction. If that's what you mean I'll put in a clarifying line.
 * Yes, thank you.Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 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):
 * If you can find something better then that poster replace it. It seems that from my own google searches and poster sites it's the best of the bunch sadly. I'd normally ask for at least one more photo of something in this article as well, but as this film isn't on DVD or VHS, I'll assume finding an appropriate image difficult.
 * I'll re-watch the footage I have and see if I can grab an image that adds something to the article. Otto4711 (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There are two possibilities: an image of several friends drinking champagne from a large bowl through straws or an image of Tony and Carlotta discovering the first body. The first doesn't really pick up on anything specific in the article and the other is not particularly visually compelling (Tony and Carlotta nudging a blanket-covered lump with their feet). If you think either of those would add any value, let me know and I'll upload one. Otto4711 (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The champagne shot might be useful, perhaps not in the plot section, but in the reception where censors had problems with the amount of alcohol in the film. This would be a big plus to the article I think. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Champagne swilling added.
 * I'll re-watch the footage I have and see if I can grab an image that adds something to the article. Otto4711 (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There are two possibilities: an image of several friends drinking champagne from a large bowl through straws or an image of Tony and Carlotta discovering the first body. The first doesn't really pick up on anything specific in the article and the other is not particularly visually compelling (Tony and Carlotta nudging a blanket-covered lump with their feet). If you think either of those would add any value, let me know and I'll upload one. Otto4711 (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The champagne shot might be useful, perhaps not in the plot section, but in the reception where censors had problems with the amount of alcohol in the film. This would be a big plus to the article I think. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Champagne swilling added.


 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I'll place the article on hold, until the above concerns are fixed. This page is on my watchlist, so you don't have to contact me when you've fixed the issues. Good luck.--Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Extra additions

 * Could you expand the lead paragraph a bit more? Perhaps information about Whale's dislike of filming a horror film and his suggestion to approach this film. It just feels that it could use a bit of expansion. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Lead expanded. Otto4711 (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Re-review
Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 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:
 * Great job on an interesting film! Keep up the great work on those James Whale related articles!
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Great job on an interesting film! Keep up the great work on those James Whale related articles!