Talk:The Testament of Dr. Mabuse/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ruslik_ Zero 13:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC) While the article is generally well written, I found a few problems: Ruslik_ Zero 13:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) and features many cast and crew members from Lang's previous films. This sentence from the first paragraph of the lead duplicates the following sentence form the second paragraph: Working many cast and crew members from his previous films.
 * Whups. Fixed that. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not fixed. Ruslik_ Zero 11:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed for real this time. :) I should learn to "Save" rather than "Show Preview". Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) and Dr. Kramm (Theodor Loos) who becomes obsessed with Dr. Mabuse The Plot section says nothing about his obsession. It only says that he was suspicious and was shot. Was not it Baum who was obsessed with Mabuse?
 * Whups again. You are correct. This has been fixed. that's just a character mix-up on my part. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) In the first paragraph of the lead there is where he is found frantically writing out his testament of crime. However the Plot section says nothing about 'testament'.
 * Removed term testament. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) there is no credit for Jacques's story in credits. I think one of "credits" should go.
 * Fixed that. Is it better now? Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Wagner shot the explosion scenes at the factory on location during the night. On which location?
 * There is no information to what location this was shot at. Location shooting refers to the fact that film was shot in a real place and not a studio set. From my sources, there is no distinct area where it says this was shot other than it was in Germany, which I think is explained already. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) on discussions on what qualified as quality Nazi film making pointing out Lang's films as the style of film Hitler had in mind Please, clarify the meaning of this sentence, and what did Hitler have in mind?
 * The source does not go into detail about this other than Fritz Lang stated that his films (specifically Die Nibelungen) were the kind of films to be permitted under the new rule of Nazi censorship. I'll re-phrase it to that.
 * 1) Goebbels problem with the film was that at the end Mabuse goes mad suggesting a state that couldn't contain the threat Please, clartify what this means.
 * I've corrected this. I was using Lang's re-count of the situation before and now I'm directly quoting Goebbels. I think it's more clear now. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * could are perfectly able is grammatically questionable. Ruslik_ Zero 11:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is. The quote is correct now. You can see it here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The most used reference is ref2, which contains a very short text. I noticed that it does not actually support many statements made in the article. You should find better references.
 * Ah. I'm not actually quoting the text on that site. I'm using Template:Cite video which is the Audio commentary by David Kalat on the DVD. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there a transcript of this commentary? Ruslik_ Zero 11:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that I know of. A lot of what is mentioned in it is also mentioned in Kalat's book "The Strange Case of Dr. Mabuse". Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) In addition, ref2 is a duplicate of ref9.
 * Ref2 is referring to the Audio commentary on the DVD by David Kalat. ref9 is referring to a video feature on the DVD about the differences between the film versions in a section called "The Three Faces of Dr.Mabuse", which is also by Kalat.
 * 1) Refs 18 and 19 are duplicates.
 * It seems that Channel 4 has updated how their reviews are viewed since I've last checked that article. I'll update. It seems they re-phrased some of the review as well. I'll fix that! Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the article is promoted to GA. Ruslik_ Zero 11:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)