Talk:The Extraordinary Adventures of Mr. West in the Land of the Bolsheviks/GA1

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

Reviewer: Utopes (talk · contribs) 23:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be taking a look at this article now. I'm looking forward to reviewing it! Utopes (talk / cont) 23:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , feel free to let me know your thoughts on this. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reviewing this! I've made most of the changes you suggested and responded to your notes below.Ghosts of Europa (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments

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

Hello! I'll be taking a look at this article now. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * "becomes the victim of an elaborate scam" - how? It might be better to be direct about the action that took place, "scam" is only used one other time in the article.
 * Added more details.
 * ✅ Looks good. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "it's often considered the beginning of a golden age of Soviet cinema" - by whom? If in the the lede, this should probably be attributed to whichever group has defined a "golden age of Soviet cinema".
 * I've attributed this to "critics and historians". That's still a bit vague, but hopefully the three citations in the body shore this up.
 * ✅ That fixes it. The allusion to critics and historians adds a basis for the "golden age", and these claims are further expanded later. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "However, it was also criticized for its American focus and disinterest in politics; the film was censored two years after its release." - it's unclear out of the gate how these are related. This sentence should probably be restructured to make it clear how the criticism unfolded.
 * I've reworded this section.
 * ✅ The new version is a big improvement which keeps the related topics together in the paragraph as a whole. Thank you! Utopes (talk / cont) 06:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "He rejected Konstantin Stanislavski's acting method, preferring his actors emphasize precise, legible movements over psychology and emotion." - this is an unnecessary continuation. Leaving off the direct mention of Stanislavski's method at the beginning would not change the meaning of what's being compared. It might still be good to talk about this method, but the way the sentence is currently structured is a fragmented comparison (going from Stanislavski, to Kuleshov, back to Stanislavski).
 * I'm not sure I understand your feedback here, but I've split this into two sentences to hopefully sound less fragmented. Let me know if this helps.
 * It looks like it was taken care of, so ✅. What I was referring to was that while Stanislavski's method was the topic, it should be introduced first before comparing it to Kuleshov, which is now effectively done. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "The actors' performances are physical and exaggerated, especially since many characters play exaggerated caricatures within the logic of the film." - the "especially since" breakaway does not seem necessary to be included in this format. If the performances are physical and exaggerated, that's that. Adding onto this extends the necessary length of what's being said, and if a mention of "exaggerated caricatures" is wanted, that should be reincorporated into the main sentence's purpose, not as a plus-one inference at the end.
 * Removed that detail.
 * ✅ Is fine; now that it's shorter it could possibly be combined with the following sentence, but doesn't need to be. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * To avoid wasting film, Kuleshov and his actors meticulously choreographed scenes" - the choreography being considered "meticulous" is not verifiable, although the use of stopwatches and metronomes is. Especially with the "to avoid wasting film" bit, it may be better to say something along lines of "stopwatches and metronomes were used...to avoid wasting film".
 * Removed the word "meticulous" and reworded this.
 * ✅, looks good (And nice catch about the double film usage!) Utopes (talk / cont) 06:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * "Western countries largely condemned the revolution's violence; the United States would not diplomatically recognize the Soviet Union until 1933." - it doesn't seem to be incredibly necessary to go into the details of the Russian Revolution, especially after stating that the setting took place in the aftermath of the Revolution. The condemnation of the revolution violence and the diplomatic recognition of the Soviet Union in 1933 does not seem incredibly pertinent here.
 * Hmm... I think this provides important context for why the American characters expect the country to be a barbaric wasteland, and why it's so triumphant / absurd that Wests hangs up a picture of Lenin at the end. Thoughts?
 * Fair enough; it's not necessarily wrong information by any means, I just thought it might've been extra for this purpose. But if you say this context is necessary, I'm inclined to agree. ✅ as resolved. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "In one scene, Boris Barnet fell while traversing a tightrope; he claimed Kuleshov left him hanging for a half hour while criticizing his insufficient training (although Kuleshov insisted he immediately called for help). Barnet refused to film the scene again, so Vladimir Fogel performed the stunt instead." - this is a really extended, and seemingly unnecessary tangent. It might be good to include as an example of a production mishap, but the way it's currently worded with the semicolon and parenthesis excerpt is too back-and-forthy to be useful. I'd recommend shortening this, mentioning Vladimir Fogel does not seem relevant as they don't appear on the in-article cast list.
 * I've shortened this to just include Barnet's side of the story.
 * I went ahead and pieced the two parts together into one sentence as well. Hopefully that's suitable with you, but besides that I'd consider this ✅. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "Kuleshov includes visual jokes, such as..." - it's unclear how necessary it is to explicitly comment on each joke, wikilinking creators of other films in the process just because of a gag that was shared between the two. This section seems like it can be trimmed and made more specific, sticking to the most important allusions.
 * Trimmed the detailed joke explanations.
 * ✅ Thank you! Utopes (talk / cont) 06:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * "West and Jeddy are satirical characters, but the film's satire is affectionate; they are portrayed as well-intentioned and more noble than the Russian criminals." - who says the satire is affectionate? What are the criteria that makes for affectionate satire? While this may have been Kuleshov's intention, the concept of "affectionate satire" is highly variable, and it's probably not necessary to "run back" the initial idea suggested, being that "the characters are satirical... BUT it's okay as [etc.]".
 * Removed this qualifier.
 * ✅ Looks good! Utopes (talk / cont) 06:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "As Jeddy learns that Russia does not match his stereotypes, he becomes less of a caricature himself" - what does it mean to be a caricature? The idea of something is or isn't a caricature can vary from person to person, and due to this subjective description, it's unclear what it means to become "less of a caricature himself".
 * I reworded this a bit. If you still think it sounds too subjective, I can attribute this interpretation to Milla Fedorova instead of saying it in Wiki voice.
 * ✅ This is fine, admittedly "stereotypical cowboy" wasn't exactly what I was expecting as a replacement, but it does clear up the intention. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * The article is stable, so no problems on that front.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The illustrations here look great!
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Hopefully these concerns can be addressed soon. Let me know if you have any questions about this feedback! Utopes (talk / cont) 00:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It looks to me that all of my concerns have been addressed. With that being said, I believe I can now pass this. Congratulations and well done! Utopes (talk / cont) 06:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)