Talk:The Lives of a Bengal Lancer (film)/GA2

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

Reviewer: Jburlinson (talk · contribs) 17:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll be glad to review this article for GA status. I'm sorry the nominator has had to wait so long. It should take me no more than 7 days to complete, hopefully I can get it done quicker. I might make some minor changes as I go along (e.g. typos, minor grammar, minor wording), but if anyone objects to these revisions, don't hesitate to revert or to let me know about your concerns. Thanks to all who have contributed to the article. Please let me know if you have any comments or questions.--Jburlinson (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I for sure did wait a long time, but it's perfectly fine as long as it's reviewed eventually. Thanks for taking on the review. I'm not currently home, but will soon be and will take an active part in the review then. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 18:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry it took me longer than I hoped for this review. I blame Thanksgiving -- and also an ear infection that laid me low for a few days. I'v made a few minor changes to the article (punctuation, typos, spelling, minor wording). Please take a look and revert any that you feel are objectionable; or let me know if you have any comments. Should finish the initial review tomorrow. Thanks for your patience.--Jburlinson (talk) 02:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's my preliminary review. Please take a look and let me know if you have questions or comments. I'll keep the review open for a while to see if there are any responses. Thanks.--Jburlinson (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)--Jburlinson (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments
Jburlinson, thank you for the review. No need to apologize for the wait time. If it were me, I would also have prioritized the holidays. :) Regarding the review, I was unable to find a source to support the claim "which bears little resemblance to Yeats-Brown's memoir" so I have removed it. About the highly positive reviews which is not mentioned in the body text of the article, I have include a "Professional ratings" table underneath the infobox that shows the reviews of Allmovie, Rotten Tomatoes, Turner Classic Movies, New York Times, and Netflix, which are all sourced. You said that there were virtually no reviews from the time of its release, but the NYT source is actually dated January 12, 1935. I can imagine there were plenty reviews, but the movie is extremely old so It's not possible to find all of them. Wonderful job in mentioning Ben Urwand and his book; I have added a lot of text about it's overall impact in Germany. I'm unable to find the piece on the movie by Scarecrow Press anywhere, so not going to be able to implement it — however, with Urwand's newly added content, I'm sure there's enough about the films response. Including a part about the impact of the film on Gary Cooper's persona would strike me as somewhat WP:OFFTOPIC. Very good idea on the Home Media section; I have included that. Regarding the relevance of the three films in the "See also" section, they are films directed by Hathaway in the same decade, so I consider them to be relevant. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. I appreciate your adding material on home media -- it seems to be something of a standard for GA film articles. I'm sure it's difficult finding vintage reviews of a film of this period, but the article would be stronger if there were more.  I mentioned the "Boy's Life" review, and there was also a review in "Variety" that mentioned footage created by Ernest Schoedsack some four years before the film was officially produced.  The NYT article was written at the time, but the WP article doesn't really discuss the critical reaction expressed in the review. The Henry Hathaway book contains a lot of information about the making of Lives; not including this material leaves a lot of interesting stuff out.  I don't think the differences between the book and film are unimportant, and they are discussed in the John Howard Reid book "History in Movies Hollywood Style".
 * In short, whereas the article has many good things as it now stands, there is still considerable information that is available about this film that is not addressed in the article. This, in my opinion, holds it back from GA status.  I'd like to see the article expanded to ensure that it meets attribute 3 of the GA guideline, "Broad in its coverage -- 3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic."  I don't mind giving this a shot myself, but I'll have to wait until after the new year.  If I do get more involved in contributing to the article, I'd probably have to bow out of the GA reviewer role, though. Again, thanks for your work on this article and for wanting to improve Wikipedia articles on films.--Jburlinson (talk) 23:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Jburlinson, I will take notes of what you replied and continue to work on the article. I'll whisper you when I'm done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 13:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks. I'll put the review in "on hold" status for a week. I hope that'll give you the time you need. If not, we can always revisit a GA at a later time. I appreciate your time and effort.--Jburlinson (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)