Talk:War film/GA1

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

Reviewer: Onel5969 (talk · contribs) 13:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


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

One of my favorite genres, so I'll take this on.
 * Thanks for that, hope you like it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * A copyvio check uncovered a major copyvio issue, which in actually is a reverse copyvio issue on a YouTube page. It meets the MOS criteria for layout, however see my thoughts in the comment section.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Well documented, no original research, citations are properly formatted.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Definitely touches on the major aspects. However the genre section needs work, see below.  I also think that there needs to be a subsection in the history section on the American Civil War.  I think that is a more major category than the Spanish Civil War, although I would definitely continue to include the latter.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Very fair.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Check of the page's history shows no conflicts, just work being done on the page. Ideas and thoughts are civilly discussed and addressed on the article's talk page, and deficiencies are then addressed in the article.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * All images are either in the PD, or have the appropriate CC license. I was impressed by the mixture of the images, between historical photos, "behind the scenes", film posters, and "making of" shots. My one issue (and it's very small, since I really liked the mix), was of the small amount of screenshots (only 3).  This could be due to copyright issues, so it's not really an issue, but more screenshots would improve the article.  I would prefer to see a screenshot than a film poster.  The placement of the pics also makes sense within the body of the article.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Hold, while discussing comments

Comments
This is so close to being a GA article, there are some tweaks, imho, that need to be made in order to get it over the hump.

Lead
This is where it starts. On the surface, the lead is fine, concise, mirrors the article, well-written. However I feel that it needs to be slightly re-organized. WWII is broken out, as it most likely should be, but that should be move to just before the final sentence of the first paragraph. Currently you touch on the 3 main types of war film, fiction, historical drama, or biographical, but you don't specifically mention that the main way war films are broken down is by historical era. I think it needs to have something more concrete to solidify it's mirroring of the article content, something like, "The fateful nature of these scenes means that films often end with them. Themes explored include combat, survival and escape, sacrifice, the futility and inhumanity of battle, the effects of war on society, and the moral and human issues raised by war. War films are most typically categorized by their millieu, e.g. Korean War, WWI, etc., with the most popular subject being The Second World War."
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

In addition, I think you need to mention that while the war film genre is one of the most commonly recognized, there is discussion as to whether certain sub-genres (e.g. certain Westerns) should be considered as war films.
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Genre section
And this ties in with the lead discussion above. Is there a general consensus on what constitutes a "war film", or a generally accepted definition? I don't have access to Google Books, but what does the Oxford Dictionary of Film Studies define as a war film? Or the Dictionary of Film Terms? How about AFI or BFI? I think this discussion needs to be expanded... slightly. I think if you put a definition or two from those credible sources, then launch into the material that's currently there with a transition like, "However among critics and film historians, there are still some differing opinions as to what to (or not to) include in the genre."
 * Done. I think we've made it clear that war film has a narrow definition (Basinger on WWII combat film) and a wider one (films that grapple with war); critics and directors take both sides. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

History/WWII
Again, not a big thing, but I would invert these two sections, especially if you make my suggested changes to the lead. I also think there needs to be a sub-section on the American Civil War, since that is one of the largest categories of war films.
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, I think that a mention of the first film to win an Oscar for best picture was a war film, at the first AA ceremonies: Wings (1927 film).
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Overall
Very nice, tight article. I think with just a few changes, this is definitely a GA article. Look forward to your response.
 * Ok, thanks. I'll see about the changes and come back to you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That seems to be about it: the key points are covered in lead and body. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice job! Congratulations. Onel5969 (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)