Talk:War Horse (film)/GA1

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

Reviewer: BarryHero (talk · contribs) 14:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a well-written article and it has all the necessary categories for a motion picture.
 * Thanks for picking this up for review, just ping when you start adding things needing improving. Rusted AutoParts  19:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * hope I'm not pestering, just seeing if any points will be raised about potential improvements to the page. Rusted AutoParts  22:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Points:

Add at the top:

Lead

• References are generally unnecessary in the lead if the information is sourced in the body, so references 2, 3, 4, and 5 do not really need to be there.

• The lead can also be written more in the style of prose.
 * I believe I tackled these Lead points. Rusted AutoParts  22:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Cast

• Cast perhaps doesn't need its own section. The cast list could be inserted under Production -> Casting in the format below:


 * Hmm, I'm not certain that's feasible. It works on a page like The Thing as there's more to that section, as well as a much shorter cast list. Rusted AutoParts  00:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Rusted AutoParts 02:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would really like to know if the edits I've made addressed your points and see if there's other points to hit. Rusted AutoParts  02:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It appears the reviewer doesn't have the time anymore to review this. I've pinged them several times with no response. Rusted AutoParts 19:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Rusted AutoParts, based on the review of the reviewer's own GA nomination, Talk:Markus Rosenberg/GA1, I'd say that they need more experience and a better understanding of what a GA-level article is before they do any more GA reviewing. I am putting this review under "second opinion" in the hopes that someone else will show up and take over the review, since a new reviewer is needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * : Hi there. I've conducted a review of the article in the hopes that we can get this dealt with quickly for you. I've made a few changes to the article's lead to smooth things along, given how long this has taken. For reference, there is no need to detail everything which exists in the info template. There were also a few issues with informal language, but they did not manifest anywhere else in the article. I am satisfied with the article as it regards WP:NPOV, WP:VER, WP:N WP:NOR.
 * My main suggestion for improvement is to add more regular citations. Try not to let more than a sentence go by without a citation, even if it’s the same reference as the next sentence. Similarly, don't leave them until the end of the paragraph. Every statement has to be easily traceable to its citation. The main offender for this is Background and Development. Once you've dealt with these, please ping me to get my attention. Thanks! And sorry for how long this has taken. Imaginestigers (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * : I also want to briefly address some issues with tone I've found elsewhere in the article. For example, in Filming, there's no need to dramatise: "Spielberg films are renowned for the levels of secrecy and security during filming, and this was no exception: filming took place under the codename Dartmoor." 'Renown' has an unusual, positive connotation, which doesn't fit there.
 * Try to maintain a neutral, invisible form of writing which prioritises the information above flair. I would correct this to: "Spielberg films are well-known [renown is a positive connotation] for their high levels of secrecy during production.[ref] War Horse filmed under the name Dartmoor." Imaginestigers (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Imaginestigers, while I appreciate your enthusiasm, someone who has been effectively editing Wikipedia just for the current week is not the best person to be reviewing a GA nomination, nor someone who has adequate experience to do so. Your suggestion Try not to let more than a sentence go by without a citation, even if it’s the same reference as the next sentence. goes against the general Wikipedia advice for sourcing; while you shouldn't pile up refs at the end of a long paragraph, there's typically no need to put a citation after every sentence if a single ref covers a series of sentences (though quotes should always be sourced without waiting a few sentences). I'd like to suggest that you wait until you've been around for a few months and have more experience with Wikipedia in general and higher quality articles in particular before you start doing GA reviews. Thanks. At this point, I hope the next reviewer to show up is someone with a reasonable amount of experience reviewing GAs. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you able to do it? I really feel for the user — he's been waiting for months. Sorry for jumping the gun; you are right. A bit rude, but right. I was passing on advice given to me by an admin, but I should probably familiarise myself more closely with WP policy instead. Pinging so they see this. I'll undo the edits I made the article, too. Imaginestigers (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * If I can add some comments from a skim read?
 * Plot on the long side
 * Subsection 'The horses' would be better just as 'Horses', right?
 * Missing a ref for In late September 2011, Disney moved the release date again, to Christmas Day 2011. - on the obvious side, there may be more, I haven't source checked
 * I like a quote box, but the article seems a bit overloaded with them? It gets a bit messy lower down
 * Is there a reason the awards table is all in small?
 * Give the awards table a separate column for refs
 * Incorrectly formatted notes
 * Some of the external links don't seem relevant? Photos of towns where it was set? Am I missing something?
 * Kingsif (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Addressed everything. As for the plot, I had previously trimmed it down to fall under WP:FILMPLOT. Rusted AutoParts  01:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've given some parts a deeper read, so more comments Kingsif (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * First paragraph of Background and development has a lot of short, simple sentences: technically fine but more variety would be better for readability (less 'boring'). There may also be some excessive detail both about the war and the book.
 * in the end they had to admit defeat - flowery
 * ✅ Rusted AutoParts  06:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * From 2006–2009, should be prose (i.e. 2006 to 2009) in this instance
 * ✅ Rusted AutoParts  06:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * While it is mentioned in the source, I think it's strange to say Richard Curtis only knew about World War I because he worked on Blackadder - perhaps some rephrasing to say he'd looked more closely at the period (you know, more than the average British history class gave him in high school. It's mentioned later that WWI is generally forgotten in the U.S., but Curtis is British, so the source may also be erroneously linking his involvement with Blackadder to his knowledge of WWI, though that's my OR)
 * Took the sentence out. Didn't add anything in my opinion. Rusted AutoParts  06:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Spielberg was a fan of Blackadder but had never met Curtis. Curtis was initially... - avoid starting a sentence with the word that ended the previous sentence
 * ✅ Rusted AutoParts  06:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * they got on so well - too informal
 * that 'the existence of the play itself helped him "be brave" about his own adaptation.' - need to fix quotation marks here
 * the 'beautiful script, really nice script' - and here
 * The paragraph beginning According to an account of the book... includes both repetition and some extra details that, chronologically, should come much earlier - also, another unconventional use of quotation marks, I can't really even make out where they're supposed to be
 * Please don't list every other war film related to Spielberg. He does a lot of them and is famous for it, a paragraph of film titles is irrelevant and excessive.
 * Dr. David Kenyon - don't need 'Dr.'. There's something in the MOS about TITLES.
 * I find that there's similar problems with strange quotation marks and their placement throughout the article, but haven't looked deeply past the Casting section. There's probably enough prose issues to warrant copyediting, though, and the list above to work on. I'll probably take this review on, though. Kingsif (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll begin seeing to these issues in the next few days. Rusted AutoParts 05:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe I've tackled these points. I might've misunderstood some however. Rusted AutoParts  06:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there any other issues to be addressed here? Rusted AutoParts  19:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well the quotation marks are still inconsistent, right from the second sentence of the Filming section. Something should be done to prose-ify On 13–14 October 2010 - an "and"? I'm pretty sure in the U.K. is wrong since I've never seen periods in "UK" before. The Williams quotation in the Music section is too long to be included in a paragraph - indent it. There's more than one wikilink to Janusz Kamiński. The biggest issue is the massive quote relating to a horse portrait that is never mentioned before and has no contextualizing, and in the release section for some reason. Plus an external link embedded in prose is a no, and the quote is frankly completely unnecessary. It seems almost childish to be using scare quotes in the "iTunes Store". The refs in the accolades table are still wrong. Critical response section satisfactory but I would have imagined it to be longer with the amount of detail in sections above. Kingsif (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Alrighty, I've tackled these. As for the Critical Response, I was looking for some specific tidbits about some of the covered aspects of the film, like Music, but I just wasn't finding anything either written or of worth including (they would just say they thought the music was good for example). Rusted AutoParts  20:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, looks good enough to go now. Kingsif (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)