Talk:The Revenant (2015 film)/GA2

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

Reviewer: MatthewHoobin (talk · contribs) 02:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

This is my first time reviewing an article. I've read through and will continue to re-read the criteria for good articles, and from a first glance, this nominee seems to be pretty well constructed. I will be analysing the page and reporting any issues I find within the next 1-3 days. – Matthew  - (talk) 02:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I will be waiting. Just need to tell you that I'm not an English-native, so if there is any grammatical issue, point that too. I'll correct and address all issues. Thanks and it's nice to see you here. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 06:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Article promotion on hold: According to Snuggums, who has also volunteered to review the article, the film is still playing in theatres and could receive further accolades, and is therefore, at the present time, unfit to be nominated for GA. However, I've still gathered a few notes:
 * Pro In terms of genre, I think calling The Revenant an "epic survival Western film" fits it rather nicely. I noticed some invisible text when editing the article's lead; the text asks that the film not be considered "historical" as doing so would be "misleading". I think "semi-biographical" should be included, but film genres are subjective.
 * Pro The infobox contains all necessary information, including the languages spoken in the film (which is a nice, however obligatory, touch).
 * Pro The article's language is overall well-written.
 * Con A citation is needed in the "Accolades" section. ✅
 * Con Many of the article's citations are used to source information that is not particularly contentious, yet are located in the middle of sentences rather than at the end of sentences. See WP:CITEFOOT for details. ✅
 * Con There is no mention of Industrial Light & Magic, a notable visual effects company that worked on the film. ✅
 * Con In the "Themes" section, I found Wai Chee Dimock's analysis of the film to be a bit unclear. A simplified summary of her words could be useful to readers.
 * I could not rewrite it, so I need help in it. Thanks. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 05:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Always a joy to summarize aesthetic writing that the source's author couldn't bother to say clearly in the first place... Yeesh, professors. czar  07:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Other than that, I haven't much to say. It's a well-written article with some fixable issues, and once the film is out of theatres and has been on home media for a decent period of time, I'm sure it'll fit nicely into the frontier of good articles. – Matthew  - (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Time to continue
MatthewHoobin, I can understand your hesitation earlier as a first-time reviewer—and thanks for taking this on!—but I think it's time to resume the review. The film began wide release back in January, and the DVD came out in April. There should be plenty of reviews out there to use, and its unlikely the critical balance will shift at this late date. Additional accolades, if they come, can be inserted at the time, but they should not affect the content or balance of the article. The comments from Snuggums date from March, prior to the DVD release and screenings in some foreign markets; I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but if there are reasons to continue the hold beyond actual issues with the article (such as the "Con" ones, which Captain Assassin! should have taken care of by now and certainly needs to within the next week), these should be spelled out. You'll also want to take another look at the article once Captain Assassin! has made the needed edits to make sure the various other edits in the past month have not caused additional issues; the article needs to meet the GA criteria at the time of promotion. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for this late, now please take a look at the article again. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 05:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The review is back like DiCaprio from a grave
Hey there! I've re-read the article once more, and I'm glad to see the improvements (there's mention of ILM; references are placed all nice and neat; and there's not a [citation needed] tag in sight). I've also made some minor adjustments of my own a few minutes ago. In regards to the issue of the lucidity of Dimock's analysis, well... I suppose that'll have to be resolved with the help of another editor, since neither Assassin! nor I can understand it very well. Then again, perhaps its clarity might be irrelevant to the page's GA status. Would anyone like to throw in their two cents about the matter? – Matthew  - (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * MatthewHoobin, I've just added a "second opinion" status to the nomination on the article's talk page in the hope of attracting a more experienced GA reviewer here to deal with the issue you were having trouble with. It may take a little while, but at least the call is out there now. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Second opinion
I'm happy to comment on this. I see no issue whatsoever regarding the film's home media / relatively short time out of theatres. The Dimock theme paragraph, however, is an incomprehensible mess. This should be addressed before passing GA. I suggest shortening that paragraph considerably, perhaps even just keeping the first sentence and adding (as briefly as possible, a couple words even) what themes it shares with Cooper's work, and instead expanding the section with a different theme source. Here's a source that comments on captivity themes in the film:. Freikorp (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you able to address the themes section, or find someone else who can? Freikorp (talk) 00:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm regretfully unable to address these issues, so I'm requesting someone who can. It'll take no more time. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 07:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's already done by, whom I requested. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 08:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Much better. I'd be happy for this to pass. Can I pass it or does that have to be done by the original reviewer. - can you answer that question? Freikorp (talk) 04:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Freikorp, final passage is up to the original reviewer, MatthewHoobin. Matthew? BlueMoonset (talk) 04:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * After looking at it once more, I agree to pass it. To GA status it goes! – Matthew  - (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)