Talk:The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari/GA1

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

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 19:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * General
 * One Dab link


 * Info box
 * I think there should be a caption for the photo, like promotional poster or something?
 * Added. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Germany uses British date formatting, not American?
 * You are correct. (The Germany article uses the British date formatting, so I assume this article about a German film should as well. :D) I've changed them. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * reveal the → reveals the
 * Fixed. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Red links are quite ugly, and if they don't have an article, there's no point linking it to a red link.
 * Actually, per WP:REDLINK: "Red links for subjects that should have articles but do not, are not only acceptable, but needed in the articles. They serve as a clear indication of which articles are in need of creation, and encourage it." I think all the redlinks in this article are for subjects that should have a Wikipedia page, so I really think they should stay. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Considered a classic film, → I think you could omit 'film' here actually.
 * OK. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * particularly horror movies and the film noir genre. → 'movies' is an informal American colloquialism, I'd stick to saying film instead of movies throughout. Also, I think it should just be "particularly in the genres of horror and film noir."
 * Changed. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Cast
 * Again, no need to link names with no articles.
 * See my comment about WP:REDLINK above. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Production - Writing
 * Writing is done before the pre-production and the script is finalised in pre-production, so I find it a bit problematic that a Writing sub-section is included in the Production section, when Writing takes place in the stage(s) before production, when Production is the making of the film. (My MA in Film is coming out here!)
 * While you are correct in your technical definition of "Production", it's pretty common practice for film articles on Wikipedia to include all these subsections under a general "Production" section. For examples of FAs that follow this practice, see Blade Runner, Tender Mercies, American Beauty, Barton Fink, etc.
 * Remove the red link for Gilda Langer
 * See my comment about WP:REDLINK above. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In describing their roles in the writing, → You've already laid emphasis on them being the writers in the previous sentence, so further emphasis here in "in the writing" I think is not needed.
 * Changed. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Janowitz said it was only years after writing the script → It was written in 1918-19 and released in 1920, so would it be more accurate to say "years after the film was released" ?
 * You are correct. Changed. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Through film director Fritz Lang, Janowitz and Mayer met with Erich Pommer, head of production at the Decla-Bioscop film studio, on April 19, 1919, to discuss selling the script. → This should have a citation at the end of the sentence.
 * There are several instances in this review where you say a particular fact needs a citation. In each of these cases, the reason a citation is missing is because the next citation (usually in the following sentence) covers that sentence as well. For example: "Jack went up the hill. Jill went up the hill.[1]" In this case, "[1]" is meant to cover both the Jack AND Jill sentences. I believe this is the proper way to do it, per WP:INCITE, because otherwise you have overly redundant uses of the same citation within a given paragraph/sentence. That being said, I did add citations to each one you cited, just so it's clear they are all sourced. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Production - Frame story
 * The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari makes use of a "Rahmenerzählung", or frame story. → Needs a citation
 * Done, but see my comment about WP:INCITE above. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Fritz Lang has said that, → Just his surname, as he has already been mentioned once before.
 * Fixed. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In his 1947 book From Caligari to Hitler, Siegfried Kracauer argued, based largely on an unpublished typescript written and provided by Janowitz,[19] that the film originally included no frame story at all and only the main story, starting with the fair coming to town and ending with Dr. Caligari becoming institutionalized. → It's odd that you place a citation mid-sentence, but also not at the end.
 * Again, that's because the portion at the end of the sentence is covered by the next available citation. I've added one to the end in this case, but see my comment about WP:INCITE above. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No surviving copies of the script were believed to exist to confirm this fact, until the early 1950s when actor Werner Krauss revealed he still had his copy. → Needs a citation.
 * Done, but see my comment about WP:INCITE above. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * agree the discovery → agree that the discovery
 * Changed. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Production - Development
 * Remove the dead red links.
 * See my comment about WP:REDLINK above. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Casting
 * Remove the dead red links.
 * See my comment about WP:REDLINK above. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The picture should be on the left hand side, because he is looking to his left (I'm under the impression that photos of people should be looking at the prose, not away from it)
 * Done. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Filming
 * Filming is the only sub-section which is actually production.
 * Again, I get that this is correct under the technical definition (it's obvious you know your stuff with regard to the film industry! :D) but I believe the section layout is consistent with Wikipedia practices. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * is disputed. Janowitz → is dispute: Janowitz
 * Are you sure? I think changing it to "dispute" rather than "disputed" would make it grammatically inaccurate. Also, since the next TWO sentences are about this dispute, not just the next sentence, I think adding the colon instead of the period could confuse readers. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I meant disputed. Typo. —  ₳aron  20:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It was the fourth film to be made there, followed by Die Pest in Florenz (1919) and the two parts of Fritz Lang's The Spiders. → Needs a citation
 * Done, but see my comment about WP:INCITE above. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * However, an understage space was provided for use as a foreground set. Certain elements from the original script had to be cut from the film due to the limited space, including a procession of gypsies, a handcart pushed by Dr. Caligari, Jane's carriage, and a chase scene involving horse-cabs. Likewise, the script called for a fairground scene with roundabouts, barrel organs, sideshow barkers, performers and menageries, none of which could be achieved in the restrictive space. Instead, the scenes use a painting of the Holstenwall town as a background; throngs of people walk around two spinning merry-go-round props, which creates the impression of a carnival. → All need citations.
 * Done, but see my comment about WP:INCITE above. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Several scenes from the script were cut during filming, most of which were brief time lapses or transitioning scenes, or title screens deemed unnecessary. One of the more substantial scenes to be cut involved the ghost of Alan at a cemetery. The scene with the town clerk berating Dr. Caligari deviated notably from the original script, which simply called for the clerk to be "impatient". → Same again. Every sentence should be cited.
 * Done, but see my comment about WP:INCITE above. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Visual style
 * David Robinson suggested → You've mentioned Robinson before, so only his surname should be used from the second mention onwards.
 * Fixed. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Themes and interpretations - Authority and conformity
 * Siegfried Kracauer said Dr. Caligari → You've mentioned Kracauer before, so only his surname should be used from the second mention onwards.
 * Fixed. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Release
 * Remove red links
 * See my comment about WP:REDLINK above. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Release - Critical reception
 * I find this section to be WP:QUOTEFARM
 * I get where you're coming from here, but I don't entirely agree. To some degree, it's inevitable there will be a lot of quotes in a critical reception section, but this section is more than simply a list of quotes from movie critics (which WOULD be a QUOTEFARM violation). WP:QUOTEFARM says that "Many direct quotations can be minimized in length by providing an appropriate context in the surrounding text." In most cases, I do that in this section. Wherever possible I paraphrase the critics in prose rather than use their quotes, like "Other commentators, like critic Herbert Jhering and novelist Blaise Cendrars, objected to the presentation of the story as..." or "Barlow said it was often the subject of critical disapproval, which..." WP:QUOTEFARM also suggests minimizing the use of large quotes "by working smaller portions of quotation into the article text". I've done this wherever possible too, like: "Kracauer said critics were 'unanimous in praising Caligari as the first work of art on the screen', but..." or "René Clair said it 'overthrew the realist dogma' of film..." I feel quotations are only used when it best serves the reader, and that removing them too much further could reduce the article's quality. However, all that being said, if you still strongly disagree I can take a crack at it. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Reception - Legacy
 * Remove red links
 * See my comment about WP:REDLINK above. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The Themes/Conformity wikilink doesn't go anywhere. And in the Frame story sub-section, you just say "See Themes section", not Themes/Conformity.
 * I fixed the links and change it so both references to the Themes section would be consistent. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Sequels, remakes and musical works
 * Remove red links
 * See my comment about WP:REDLINK above. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In 2012, the Chatterbox Audio Theatre recorded a live soundtrack, including dialogue, sound effects and music, for Caligari. The film, with this soundtrack, was released on YouTube on October 30, 2013. → In 2012, the Chatterbox Audio Theatre recorded a live soundtrack, including dialogue, sound effects and music, for Caligari, which was released on YouTube on October 30, 2013.
 * Changed. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

This is definitely one of the most well-written articles I've reviewed or read. But I'm concerned that it is too detailed in parts. The Production section, and it's five sub-sections, is very long. I feel like every single piece of information has been included, when this is perhaps not quite necessary to include every tiny detail or nuance. Also, you say in the lead that sources for its financial success differ, but you don't elaborate on this point at all in the entire article. I'm placing on hold for the time being for you to address what's above. — ₳aron  18:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Outcome
 * As you probably know, there is a LOT written about Caligari. There are tons of sources out there about it, and there's a lot of minor detail that I've omitted. I know the article is long, but that's because it's an important and well-document subject, and I really think any information I've included is relevant information. Also, I wrote this with an eye on eventually nominating it for WP:FA, and WP:FAC requires that it be "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". That being said, if there are specific elements of this article that you feel should be cut or condensed, I'm willing to discuss them. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this review! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Passing. —  ₳aron  20:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)