Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story/archive1

Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story

 * Nominator(s): Damien Linnane (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the biopic of Bruce Lee. Commercially successfully and critically acclaimed, Dragon was, however, somewhat dramatized, with the director openly saying he wanted the film to have "humor and spectacle" of one of Bruce Lee's actual films, where there was a "larger sense of fun and danger" and "reality is not exactly adhered to". This article has received a peer review and copy-edit from GOCE (sans the Themes section, which I had not yet written when the copyedit was done). Damien Linnane (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from Aoba47
I will put up a review by the end of the week, and I am leaving this as a place-holder. The following book (linked here) has a chapter that has analysis on the film, and I was wondering if it would be helpful for the article? It may also be helpful to add some type of descriptive phrase in front of Meaghan Morris and Zheng Zhu to give the reader a better understanding of them. Please ping me if I have not put up further comments by Sunday. Aoba47 (talk) 01:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Aoba47. Looking at that source: it starts talking about Dragon towards the bottom of page 293. Page 294 is omitted from the preview and by page 295 they've clearly stopped talking about the film. The eBook price of $30 makes me very hesitant to buy it for less than one page of information that only might be helpful. Also the fact the book gets the year Dragon was released wrong on page 293 (1995 instead of 1993) also doesn't fill me with confidence, but I really appreciate the suggestion.
 * That is understandable. You could always ask on the resource request, but a factual error like that does not inspire confidence either. Aoba47 (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Just for the record I did end up getting the source through resource request. But only talked about the film for another sentence or two on the next page, and what it did say didn't look particularly useful. Damien Linnane (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've clarified who Meaghan Morris is. At the time he wrote that article, Zheng Zhu was a PhD student at Washington State University, though he is now an Assistant professor of communication at New York City College of Technology. I've described him as a 'then Washington State University PhD student', though if you'd rather me introduce him as a current Assistant professor just let me know. Damien Linnane (talk) 10:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. I think "then Washington State University PhD student" is too wordy, and I am uncertain of the value of including the person's school affiliation or student status at the time of the publication. It may be better to instead opt for a more generic/general "academic" instead. Aoba47 (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah agreed. Changed to 'academic'. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I am confused by the repetition in this sentence, (Dragon is dedicated to Brandon Lee, who died while filming The Crow several weeks before the release of Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story.), particularly how Dragon and Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story are represented in two different ways.
 * Yeah I think that changed was made during the copy-edit actually. I've reworded it.


 * I would revise this part, (haunting a young Bruce), to something like (haunting his son) to avoid repeating "Bruce" and I think it is already clear from the context of the paragraph that Bruce is young at the time.
 * Changed.


 * For this part, (as is allows Linda), I think you mean "it allows" instead of "is allows".
 * Fixed.


 * The Green Hornet is linked in the "Plot" and the "Casting" sections. The same for Tao of Jeet Kune Do for the "Plot" and the "Pre-production" sections, and Kung Fu is also linked twice. I would have them only linked once.
 * Fixed.


 * I think the prose in the second paragraph of the "Critical response" section could use more work, because I find a lot of the sentence structures to be very similar. I would add more sentence variety to make it a more cohesive narrative. I am also not sure of using such a long quote at the end of the Rainer sentence.
 * I've trimmed the Rainer quote. I've also done some reorganising and completely changed one of the reviewers comments. Have a look and let me know if you think it needs more tweaking.
 * I think the paragraph could still use some more tweaking. The paragraph has a lot of great information, but a lot of the sentences have a similar construction of (X critic says Y opinion), and it would read better to vary the sentences more. I am sure you have seen this before, but this essay has great advice on this. Also, I do not think it is necessary to include this part "gave the film 2.5 out of 4". It is the only part where the reviewer's rating is given so it is a little odd, and I am not sure how helpful it is to the reader. Aoba47 (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I included the rating because that's the only review that actually gives a specific rating, but if you think that looks out of place I'm happy to remove it. I'll have another look at trying to restructure the paragraph shortly.
 * I've struggled with this, but I've given it another go. Tell me what you think and feel free to make any tweaks yourself if you see room for improvement. Damien Linnane (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have a question about this part (The Los Angeles Times reported the word). For the rest of the article, you have included the writer's name, but in this instance, you only include the publication name. I would include the writer's name here for consistency's sake. Aoba47 (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Great work with the article. I will support this for promotion once everything is addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your review . I've tried to address all the concerns. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good. Great work with the article. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from Pseud14
Following up my comments at PR, and from what I gathered this received a copy-edit. Just had another read through and I'm happy to support now but consider the following: Nothing to frighten the horses there, but worth checking I think. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This causes a rift between Linda, who wishes to return to the US, and Bruce - perhaps you can revise for better flow, i.e. rift bet Bruce and Linda, who wishes...
 * The film ends during a shot of the final scene of Enter the Dragon - for this part, maybe it's clearer to say the film ends 'with' a shot instead of 'during'
 * Cohen, who wanted the audience to understand from the beginning the film would not be a traditional biopic - "that" the film would not be...
 * Thanks so much for your comments . I've reworded all three points. For the second one I've clarified it is a reconstructed shot, rather than footage from the original film, as I believed that was important to mention. Let me know if you have any further concerns. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks good and great piece of work, nothing hindering me from providing my support. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from Homeostasis07
I made a couple of copy-edits on my way through the article. Feel free to undo them if you don't think they were of any use.

Lead ^ I'd rephrase this to something like: Rather than making a traditional biopic, Cohen decided to include in the script elements of mysticism from Bruce's life, and dramatizing fights scenes to give it the same tone as the films in which Bruce starred.
 * "Rather than making a traditional biopic, Cohen decided to approach the script by including mystical elements and dramatizing fights scenes to give it the same tone as the films in which Bruce starred."

Plot ^ How about: Linda suggests Bruce establishes a martial arts school, but his Chinese peers demand he only train Chinese people. When Bruce refuses to obey the demand, they challenge him to settle the matter in combat.
 * "Linda suggests Bruce opens a martial arts school but his Chinese peers demand he must only train Chinese people and challenge him to settle the matter in combat."

^ her mother. It's obvious who we're talking about at this point in the paragraph.
 * "the couple reconcile with Linda's mother."


 * Also change link from Kung Fu (TV series)→Kung Fu (1972 TV series), per recent redirect

Themes
 * I'd consider linking pedagogy. Otherwise, I thought I'd point out now how wonderfully written I think this section is. I love the whole Ouroboros aspect, how one thing ends up feeding into another. Brilliantly done. ;)

Pre-production ^ It was decided by who? Cohen? The producers? I'd quantify this, if possible to do so.
 * "It was decided to avoid making a standard biographic film and instead incorporate "mystical and legendary aspects" from Bruce's life, telling his story "as if it were, in fact, a Bruce Lee movie"."

^ Cohen learnt that for the first two years of Bruce's life, ...
 * "Cohen learnt for the first two years of Bruce's life, his parents had dressed and passed him off as a girl to protect him from a superstitious Chinese belief that demons target first-born sons."

Casting ^ I'd specify that that he had the appropriate martial arts training here
 * "While Brandon Lee was the right age and had appropriate training"

^ How about: Cohen cast Jason because he believed trying to teach a martial artist to act would be more difficult than training an actor in martial arts.
 * "Cohen cast Jason because [he] believed trying to teach a martial artist to act would not work and decided to train an actor in martial arts."

Post-production ^ were used twice?
 * "None of the custom-made sound effects in the fight scenes was used twice."

^ Cohen decided to expand the theme of Bruce's father's belief that a demon was stalking his son
 * "Cohen decided to expand the theme of Bruce's father's belief a demon was stalking his son"

Historical accuracy
 * I'm not sure the use of ; is appropriate in some of these instances. Like "Metaphors are used to represent real events; for example, a cheering crowd carries Bruce away from Linda after the premier of The Big Boss; Cohen used the scene to illustrate Bruce's fame creating a distance between the couple.", which I think could be rephrased as "Metaphors are used to represent real events. An example of this can be found in a scene where a cheering crowd carries Bruce away from Linda after the premier of The Big Boss. Cohen said he used this scene to illustrate Bruce's fame creating a distance between the couple."

Otherwise, I think this is a brilliantly written article, and would be happy to support once these quibbles have been responded to one way or the other. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . Thanks for your review. I've addressed everything you brought up, either rewording it to what you suggested or something similar. Let me know if you have any further concerns. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 05:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with the changes you've made, so can support. Good luck with the nomination! ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from NTox
I enjoyed reading this article. I have not seen the movie, and I am not very familiar with Bruce Lee, so it was a learning experience. I particularly enjoyed reading the content about the director's efforts to represent Lee's life faithfully but also employ narrative freedoms to tell an interesting story. The fact that I liked reading the article and learned from it seems a good sign for what Wikipedia is trying to do. Since I am not an expert on this film, I should emphasize that I am not the best to speak to whether or not the page is comprehensive of the literature, but I think the perspective of a non-expert can be useful for gauging how another such person would understand the article. I made a few tweaks and copyedits before writing these comments; feel free to revert any of them that you disagree with. I don't pretend to be an expert on all of Wikipedia's guidelines or on writing itself. I have some initial questions and comments; it is possible I might have more thoughts later.


 * Is the page written in American or British English? It seems it might be intended to be American ('dramatized', etc.), but I have seen some British usage ('behaviour', 'theatre', 'honour', 'learnt')
 * It's actually supposed to be British. The copy-editor asked me the same thing before he started; I guess 'dramatize' fell through the cracks. I've fixed that, and I've added the British English template to the article to clear up any confusion in the future.
 * Thanks for clarifying. I think this is all looking good now. NTox · talk


 * I have spotted some duplicate links, particularly in the Casting section. As you know, MOS:DL does list some exceptions where this is okay, but it might be worth checking the page with something like the duplinks tool
 * I checked using the tool. It found three duplicate links. I've removed them all.


 * The Themes section was interesting. I wonder if this section can be expanded a bit? I did a brief Internet search, and it seems that academic discussion about this film is slim, but I still wonder if anything can be added. I get the impression that race is a dominant theme of the movie. Was there any exploration of this or other themes by critics? Or by more academics? Right now, we are limited to analysis from two commentators.
 * I haven't been able to find any other sources unfortunately. One of my other reviewers even suggested a source to use though upon getting a copy it didn't actually contain any usable information.


 * Another note about Themes - the section mentions that one commentator explored a theme of pedagogy. Did the author describe pedagogy as an actual theme of Dragon? Or was she just stating that the Breakfast at Tiffany's scene was a teaching moment for the Linda character?
 * Meaghan Morris is the author of one chapter of the book cited. The chapter is entitled "Pedagogy and Political Correctness in Martial Arts Cinema", so obviously that's the overall topic at hand. It's a 19 page chapter (excluding references), of which 6 pages is dedicated to Dragon; I think it's therefore fair to say she's considering the film to be a major factor in the themes. She doesn't use the term pedagogy directly to describe Dragon, though she makes very clear the scene is a teaching moment.
 * I suppose since the sentence is written as Writing about themes of pedagogy and political correctness in film, I get the sense that Morris is saying pedagogy is a theme of Dragon. Rather, it sounds like pedagogy was was a topic of her writing. I wonder if there is a way to clarify this. NTox · talk
 * I'm at a bit of a loss of how to clarify it further at this stage. Damien Linnane (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * For me, removing "themes of" would probably be sufficient. When I read it, I just get the impression that the claim is being made that pedagogy is specifically described by the author as a theme of this film. NTox · talk
 * Done. Damien Linnane (talk) 06:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Also about Themes - I note that WP:INTEXT generally recommends not to mention publishing information in text, such as journal names and dates, etc., unless there is a compelling reason to do so.
 * I think clarifying what Zheng was writing in is a compelling reason, as otherwise it's unclear why we should be listening to his opinion.


 * It seems that the lead may be missing a brief summary of the themes. I think this would be useful to add particularly if any expansion is able to be done to the Themes section
 * Hmmm. I like that idea in theory. Since there's limited sources on themes though I don't really think we can say there's a consensus about them. We'd be making a comment based on one source only, and I'm not sure if that's undue weight for the lead.
 * It is a shame that there seems to be a limited number of sources discussing the film's themes. If that is the case, I can see your argument that discussing this in the lead may imply too much of a consensus. NTox · talk


 * I'm not necessarily saying it shouldn't be used, but it might be worth thinking about the value in citing Rotten Tomatoes in the Critical response section--or, perhaps, thinking about how prominently it is described in the section. Per MOS:FILM (which also links to WP:ROTTEN), Rotten Tomatoes is less reliable for pre-Internet films, as many reviews for those films are not online and therefore may not be included in the aggregation.
 * Hmmm, that's a good point and something I didn't consider. Thanks for bringing it up. That being said, the Rotten Tomatoes summary and score is consistent with the literature I've found. At this stage I'm inclined to leave it in unless there's further comments about the matter.
 * I see the reference to Rotten Tomatoes is now removed. I think this is probably best. Good to cite the sources directly in this case. NTox · talk
 * Yep, another reviewer also complained about it so I removed it entirely. Damien Linnane (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * where he meets Linda. Bruce marries Linda in defiance of her racist mother I think we should mention here that Linda is a white woman (or whatever term the MOS recommends; I am not sure). This clarifies the next statement about racism attributed to Linda's mother
 * Hey yeah, that's also a good point. Done.


 * I am unclear about what an 'honour match' is
 * Good point. I left that in from before I overhauled the article. It doesn't really serve any purpose so I've removed the term.


 * I think 'climactic' is probably clear enough to most readers that the wikilink can be removed
 * Good point. Removed.


 * The film ends with a reconstructed shot of the final scene I am unclear about what this means
 * So the final shot is a recreation of a scene in Enter The Dragon. Jason is on a bridge practicing martial arts with the sun setting in the background, in an identical manner to how Bruce lee did in that film. Is there a way you think this could be clarified better to someone who hasn't seen either film?
 * I wonder if something like this would work: Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story ends with a shot of Bruce practicing martial arts in front of the sunset, an homage to a scene in the real Enter The Dragon. Or something like that. NTox · talk
 * Actually it just occurred to me my only source for this was the director's commentary. The recreation part was seconds before that, when Jason surveys martial arts students. I believe the actual practicing martial arts in front of the sunset is new footage. I've simplified the wording her accordingly. Let me know if you think it needs further clarification. I'm actually 100% happy to just remove the reference the recreated scenes. Damien Linnane (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that, I think it is likely best to remove. It may be questionable to include in the Plot summary anyway if the film itself does not reference the fact that it is a recreation, or if it does not make a substantive point of the recreation. NTox · talk
 * Done. Damien Linnane (talk) 06:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * He cast Michael Learned as Vivian Emery Is Vivian Emery Linda's mother? I may have missed it, but I don't know if this is stated previously in the article. It may be worth clarifying
 * Hey good catch. I never actually clarified her name in the plot. Fixed now.
 * Thanks for clarifying. NTox · talk


 * an extortion attempt by triads Is this meant to be plural, as in there was an extortion attempt by multiple triads, or just one triad?
 * Good catch. Clarified.


 * were shot in Macao I think it would be valuable to clarify that Macao is in China
 * Done.


 * When referencing the demon character directly, it seems that the word is sometimes capitalized and other times not
 * I found one instance of when it should have been capitilised. I use capitals when referring to the character, and don't when referring to the concept of a demon in general.
 * Good catch. NTox · talk


 * a further $1 million on Dolby Digital fight-scene sound effects It may be confusing to refer to these as 'Dolby Digital' sound effects, as it implies that the $1 million was largely paid to Dolby for the production of the sound effects, which does not seem to be the case. I know Dolby is mentioned in the source, but I think it is more simply referring to the fact that the film was exhibited with Dolby Digital technology
 * Hmmm. Good point. I'll just remove Dolby Digital entirely. The key message is that extra money was spent on sound effects.


 * It may be helpful to note that the Grauman's Chinese Theatre is in Hollywood
 * Done.


 * The Historical accuracy section discusses the accuracy of whether or not the Kung Fu idea was stolen. Was the idea that this was stolen discussed in the Plot section? My initial impression was merely that the show was produced differently than how Bruce wanted
 * Oh the issue is that Bruce helped create the idea on the grounds he would feature as the show's lead character, and instead it was given to another (white) actor. I've reworded the plot to make this clear.


 * the fight's ritual setting I am unclear about what this means
 * In the film the fight is very formal. It's set in a underground chamber with 'kung fu masters' dressed in oriental clothes overseeing the fight. They depict it as a very formal fight set deep in tradition. In reality, it was basically just fought in an empty room with half a dozen people standing in the corners watching. I've done some rewording to make this clearer. Let me know if that's still not clear enough and if you'd like further details.


 * Johnny did not challenge Bruce to a rematch there as depicted in the film. Was/is Johnny Sun a real person? Bruce's real life opponent is described earlier as Wong Jack Man, which gave me the impression that Johnny is not real. But this sentence makes me think he is real and that he simply didn't challenge Bruce the way his character did in the film
 * There is no person named Johnny Sun who was involved with Bruce Lee. I would presume they changed the name of the character as they were portraying him in a fictional manner. As is indicated in the article, Bruce Lee's opponent did NOT kick him in the back, therefore calling the character who did kick him Wong Jack Man would have obviously opened them up to all kinds of lawsuits. I've clarified in the prose that Johnny is fictional. Let me know if you think it needs further rewording.
 * Thanks for the clarification. You might notice I made a minor edit that clarifies this a bit further. NTox · talk
 * Very happy with your changes. Damien Linnane (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

As stated, I enjoyed reading the article. Feel free to revert or comment about anything you disagree with or let me know if you think there's something I misunderstood. These are simply some initial thoughts I had as I read the article. NTox · talk 07:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your comments, I really appreciate them. I've replied to each of your points. Let me know if you have any further concerns. Damien Linnane (talk) 10:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to write a quick courtesy note that I appreciate you reviewing my comments; bear with me while I find an opportunity to look over your responses and the current state of the article. I will return here soon. NTox · talk 20:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the delay in getting back here. I have had some personal commitments that have made it difficult to find time to revisit the article. Nonetheless, I did another readthrough tonight and made a few edits to the page. Feel free to modify or inquire about any of those changes. Unfortunately I have run out of time today but I promise I will return here tomorrow to make completed comments to this page. I appreciate your patience and I continue to enjoy my read of this article. NTox · talk 07:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for keeping me posted. I'm really happy with the minor changes you've made so far. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 07:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bearing with me. I tried to keep any edits to the page minor. As already stated, feel free to modify or inquire about any edit I made. It is possible I may have missed something or you might have a different view on something. I think I am close to supporting the article for promotion. In the interest of getting the page up to the highest possible quality, I wanted to be as thorough as possible in my full comments. I enjoyed the page further on my second readthrough. Let me know what you think.


 * There are a couple references to the idea that Cohen did not want to make a traditional biographical film/biopic, so he dramatized things and added elements to the story. My understanding is that biographical films/biopics nearly always dramatize elements and take artistic liberties (otherwise it would be a docudrama-style film), so I am unsure this is an optimal characterization. It may be better to simply describe here that Cohen was not concerned with exact historical accuracy rather than referring to the biopic genre specifically
 * I don't think many biographical films incorporate supernatural and spiritual themes. I mean, a seven foot Demon keeps chasing Bruce around. That goes way beyond typical dramatisation. Those are also Cohens own words (paraphrased), so I'm inclined to keep them as is. Let me know what you think. Damien Linnane (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this is fair. NTox · talk


 * On this note, the film is described as a 'biopic drama' in the lead sentence. Since both 'biopic' and 'drama' are both nouns, would this be correct? It seems this would be similar to calling a film a 'romance comedy' rather than a 'romantic comedy'. How do sources describe the genre of the film? Just a 'biopic'? 'Drama'? 'Biographical drama'?
 * I'm not a copy-editor but I'll take your word on 'biopic drama' being a grammatical issue. I've just replaced every instance of 'biopic' with 'biographical'. There used to be a mixture of the two terms but another reviewer said to be consistent, so now I'll just be consistent using the other word. Sources most frequently described it as both a drama and a biographical film. Damien Linnane (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe this is a good change, especially if sources largely use the term 'biographical'. NTox · talk


 * How significant are Edward Khmara and John Raffo as writers of the film? I noticed they are not mentioned in the lead
 * As far as I can tell, hardly significant at all. I didn't find any coverage of their input. The only reason they get mentioned in the prose is because another reviewer pointed out they got mentioned in the infobox. And the only reason they got mentioned in the infobox is because they're in the credits. Damien Linnane (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. NTox · talk


 * Is the Robert Clouse book Bruce Lee: The Biography or Bruce Lee: The Beginning? It seems the article body says the former and the infobox says the latter
 * Oh good catch. I checked the edit history and turns out the infobox has been wrong for years and I just didn't pick up on that when I overhauled the article. Fixed now. Damien Linnane (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * an example of behaviour towards Asian people that was typical in the US at the time. I am not personally doubting this is true, but it seems like a statement we would have to be careful about. It seems to be making a broad claim about real-life United States culture during a specific time period; I am concerned this falls outside the scope of this article and otherwise would require strong sources to support. I think we might be better off removing this and simply describing that the film focuses on issues of racism in relation to Bruce in the United States
 * Good point. Removed. Damien Linnane (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * dramatise fights scenes Is 'fights' (plural) a British/Australian use of the word? In the U.S., we would say 'fight scenes'. Let me know.
 * No that's just a typo. Fixed. Damien Linnane (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * helps him write a book Does the film indicate what this book is about? If so, it might be worth a brief description of what he is writing about, unless perhaps it is not described in the film itself
 * It does. It's basically Bruce's theories about martial arts. I've just clarified it's a martial arts book. A wikilink is there for the book so if people want to know they can read the article. Damien Linnane (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * and subsequently enrolls him in a Chinese martial arts class led by instructor Yip Man Was Bruce enrolled in the class after awakening from the dream? The structure of the sentence might give the impression that he was enrolled in class within the dream itself
 * So the dream isn't Bruce's, it's his fathers. He enrolls Bruce in martial arts instruction after waking. I can see your point, though I think most people won't think the training is in the dream. If you can think of a way to word it differently though I'm open to suggestions. Damien Linnane (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I misspoke there. In all, I think it now looks okay. NTox · talk


 * Johnny's humiliating defeat and subsequent disability Was Johnny disabled as a result of Bruce defeating him at the tournament? It may be more effective to mention this happened in the section's initial description of the fight, and then remove the reference to the disability in this sentence
 * He was apparently disabled in the tournament fight, but we don't learn that until his brother later confronts him. I'm therefore unsure if it's appropriate to say he was disabled in the initial mention of the tournament fight since the viewer doesn't know that at this point. Damien Linnane (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In this case, I think it is okay. WP:FILMPLOT advises that plot events do not have to be described in order, and sometimes it is preferable to rearrange events to make sense of things. NTox · talk
 * I've added a sentence about it. I think it's important for the viewer to know that Bruce doesn't know he crippled Johnny, so I mentioned that. Damien Linnane (talk) 06:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * resulting in him having to leave Hong Kong I wonder if there is a way to establish he is in Hong Kong earlier, so we have some context of where the fight takes place and why it involves British sailors
 * I can see your point. I've been trying to think of a way to do this but it all comes across as a bit awkward. The best suggestion I have is "haunting his young son outside a temple in Hong Kong". Let me know if you have a better suggestion. Damien Linnane (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That could work. Another quick idea is In Hong Kong, Bruce Lee's father awakens from a nightmare about a phantom, known as the Demon, haunting his young son.
 * Done. Damien Linnane (talk) 06:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Bruce defeats Johnny Sun I have a similar concern that it may be better to introduce who Johnny is before we say he was defeated
 * I don't think this would be appropriate, because we don't find out who Bruce's opponent will be until he turns up to the match, and we never actually learn anything about Johnny anyway. No clarification is given as to why he has been chosen to be Bruce's opponent. Therefore I wouldn't actually know how to introduce him. Damien Linnane (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think the way it's written now is a dealbreaker, but a quick description could be something like Bruce defeats a challenger named Johnny Sun in a secret, no-holds-barred match". NTox · talk
 * Done. Damien Linnane (talk) 06:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Bruce Lee's father (and also the link to him in the Cast section) These may not be consistent with WP:EASTEREGG
 * Changed. Damien Linnane (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * One note on this: I am inclined to say that we should follow the sources in terms of using Bruce's father's name. I see, for example, that AFI, AllMovie, and IMDb all list Ric Young's role as "Bruce's father", rather than Lee Hoi-chuen. While it would be unlikely, perhaps someone might also argue that in the context of the film, the character of the father may not be necessarily meant to represent Lee Hoi-chuen specifically, similar to the character of Johnny Sun and the real man he's loosely based on. I would be inclined to describe him as Bruce's father and remove the wikilink in the Plot and Cast sections. NTox · talk
 * Oh it's a good observation that he is listed as 'Bruce's father'; I actually just checked the credits of the film itself and they refer to the character in that manner as well. However in Chapter 5 of the DVD, 'Bruce's father' takes Bruce into his study which is filled with posters and paraphenalia from his time as a film and stage actor circa 1930s. At least one of these posters features the name 'Lee Hoi-chuen' on it quite prominently. It also shows a close-up of Bruce's birth certificate, which according to Cohen, is an exact replica of the original. I wasn't able to zoom in on my small laptop, but I'm sure Lee Hoi-chuen's name appears in the fine print of that certificate. In the directors commentary Cohen also explicitly refers to Lee Hoi-chuen by name and states the character is based on him, whereas in the commentary he also mentions Johnny has been fictionalised from Wong Jack Man. I think it's definitely best to refer to the character as 'Bruce's father' in the cast section as that is how he officially appears, though I also think that considering what I've mentioned that that link is piped to Lee Hoi-chuen. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


 * continue his education Is this his college education? Or his martial arts education? I assume the money was so he could start college
 * College. Reworded. Damien Linnane (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Critiques, however, were made Who made these critiques? Is this Zhu?
 * Yes. I've reworded to clarify, though now I feel like the flow of the paragraph isn't as good. Zhu's name gets mentioned too many times. Damien Linnane (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and changed one use of his name to 'he'. Let me know if you think that works. NTox · talk
 * Looks good, thanks. Damien Linnane (talk) 06:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Cadwell spoke highly of the film I noticed this is in the Pre-production section. Did she speak highly of the film while it was in pre-production? Does this mean she liked the screenplay?
 * No. That's an oversight. Removed. Damien Linnane (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The picture of the Lo Pan Temple mentions the ceramic figures at the top of the structure. Is there a picture of the temple that might have a more prominent view of the ceramics?
 * There doesn't appear to be. Close ups of the ceramics would be counter productive anyway. The ceramics are not immediately recognisable from the film, whereas the temple's entrance is. I can just remove the reference the the ceramics if you want. Damien Linnane (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that you would not want a photograph that is too close on the ceramics. Ideally a picture from a higher angle might work better, but if it's not available, that's all we can do. I don't know that it's worth removing the sentence about the ceramics, but if another picture comes along to the Commons, it would be worth looking at. NTox · talk


 * One stuntman received a minor cut during the hall of mirrors scene I wonder if this is worth stating? I imagine minor cuts are relatively common during film shoots. Was it a particularly dangerous scene to shoot?
 * No, it wasn't particularly dangerous. I was just trying to get as much information as possible about fights. I've removed this now, though now the paragraph is a bit bare. Damien Linnane (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * the word 'bittersweet' was mentioned many times In my view, I don't know that the word 'bittersweet' is the important aspect here. I know this is what the LA Times reporter stated in a literal sense, but I think he was merely trying to write an interesting lead. I would probably just describe simply that the people who attended the premiere felt that it was bittersweet due to Brandon's death
 * Done. Damien Linnane (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * There is some evidence to support Bruce and Cadwell's assertion that his idea was stolen though according to Warner Bros., Kung Fu was a separate project To clarify, did Warner Bros. say Kung Fu was their own separate project and it was not stolen? What is the evidence referenced initially that it was in fact stolen? I think this needs to be clarified
 * I don't see how this could be confusing. I mean, Warner Bros. said it was a separate project. If it's separate (as they claim), how could it be stolen? So yes, I'm saying Waner Bros. are saying it wasn't stolen.
 * The evidence it was stolen is complicated. There's several paragraphs on it in a section specifically about the issue at the article for Kung Fu (1972 TV series). I'm thinking it would be much better to wikilink 'some evidence' to the sub-section at that article, rathern than trying to paraphrase a complicated issue into a couple sentences (or completely blow out the section of this article by going into far too much detail in order to cover all angles. And yes, I know the sub-section at that article isn't fantastically written or referenced, but that's neither here nor there in terms of the nomination for Dragon. Damien Linnane (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually I've given a go at clarifying the allegation and issue further, let me know what you think. Damien Linnane (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the section is strengthened with these changes. NTox · talk


 * I noticed some references to critics that say "from the" and others "of the" when describing what publication they are associated with. I believe "of the" would be the one to use, but this may be worth checking
 * I was going to ask at GOCE what the appropriate term was, but I mean, this article already went through GOCE and they seemed fine with both terms. Can we not use both? I don't see how this could be a problem. Damien Linnane (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is probably okay. The original concern was mainly about consistency; in all, I don't know that either of them are particularly incorrect. NTox · talk


 * the fight's premise is otherwise genuine Was is meant by the premise of the fight is genuine? Simply that the fight happened?
 * Yes. When this article was first nominated the sentence read "Cohen said he dramatized the fight's ritual setting though states the event is otherwise genuine." I was asked to clarify which part was 'otherwise genuine', so I clarified that it was the fight's premise that is genuine, as the fight itself is also dramatised. According to the Fightlnad source used in the article, it was over quickly and was quite awkward to watch. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've decided to expand on this a bit with more detail. Let me know what you think. Damien Linnane (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this looks okay. NTox · talk


 * is a replica Does this mean a replica of Bruce's real life gravestone?
 * Yes. It looks exactly the same, minus the photo obviously. I'm just going to remove this entirely. This sentence was already in the article before I overhauled it, though it was not referenced. I found a reference and added it in. But come to think of it I probably wouldn't have added the information myself as it isn't that interesting. Damien Linnane (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The film debuted at number one at the US box office It would probably be best to give the date this happened, when the film debuted in public release
 * Done. Damien Linnane (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * 45% of the film's audience were women Over what period? Was this during the opening weekend?
 * Yes. Reworded. Damien Linnane (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Earnings were considerably lower than those during busier times of the year This might be better rephrased. It could be seen as speculating that revenue would have been higher if it was released during a different time of the year. I would simply say something like that it opened in a slow period prior to the summer releases, but it did well
 * Is it a problem if it indirectly speculates that? I mean, that's not an unreasonable assumption by any means. Furthermore if I say something like Dragon did well during a slow period for movie releases, couldn't it be speculated that it only did well because it's a slow period for film release? I've been trying to come up with wording that addresses both these concerns and also acknowledges the fact it broke a record (which the source annoyingly doesn't clarify further), but I thought I'd run my points by you first. Damien Linnane (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In my view, it may not be unreasonable to presume it would do better in a season like summer, but the counterpoint might be that it might actually do worse if the film is up against blockbuster competition. I think my concern is mainly with the use of "Earnings were considerably lower". It may also be advisable to remove the reference to the apparent record as that does not seem to be clarified by the source. One option might be a more straightforward description: The Los Angeles Times described the earnings as "impressive" for a debut in the historically-slow period of early May. Or something similar. Let me know what you think. NTox · talk
 * Oh that's much better wording, changed. Damien Linnane (talk) 06:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again for your patience and for managing the thorough review. I hope it is helpful and I am glad you chose to expand this article. It makes me very interested to see the film. NTox · talk 09:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . Thanks for your comments. I've replied to everything. Damien Linnane (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I am close to supporting. Your work is appreciated. I have just a few more things I noticed when I looked over the latest changes, and then I think I will be done.


 * The Critical response section mentions at the outset that reviewers enjoyed Jason's performance but there was criticism of the film's veneration of Bruce. If this is the reviewer consensus, should this be added to the lead? At the moment it states simply that critics liked Jason's performance
 * Good point. Done. Damien Linnane (talk) 11:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * A minor point: in the Related media section, it states that the player can fight "the English sailor", but the Plot section suggests that the fight involved a group of sailors. Should this be "the English sailors" (plural) or perhaps "an English sailor"?
 * I just played the game via en emulator (it's surprisingly hard btw). Anyway in the first level you only fight one sailor, though from the proceeding cut-scene it is made very clear he is the ringleader of the group of sailors that Bruce fights in the film (the other sailors appear in the background of the game cheering on their friend, though do not join in like in the film). I've changed it to 'an English sailor'. Damien Linnane (talk) 11:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Props to you for playing the game to check! NTox · talk


 * was done to show the appalling conditions most Chinese people experienced when emigrating at the time. I have a similar concern as the sentence about racism that was previously in the lead. I fear it could be read as making a contentious claim about history based on the comments of the director, which would not be an ideal source to rely on in this context. Maybe a more straightforward description might work better, such as was done to show experiences of emigration by Chinese people. Or something like that. NTox · talk
 * Done. Damien Linnane (talk) 11:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Last thing: throughout the article, I noticed that occasionally folks like Bruce, Brandon, and Johnny are referred to by just their first name, just their last name, or their first and last name. I've just read the guideline for the first time now, but it seems that MOS:SURNAME and MOS:SAMESURNAME advise that the first mention of a person should use their first and last name, and subsequent references should use their last name only. The exception for subsequent mentions seems to be that when people have the same last name within an article (which clearly applies here), we should refer to them by first names. Despite this, the guideline also says we should always use a last name "when referring to the person who is the subject of the article", except in cases in which it is unclear to which person we are referring (then use the first name). I suppose it is arguable whether Bruce is the "subject" of the article in this case. The page indicates this guideline applies to straight biography articles and biographical content in other articles.
 * NTox · talk 03:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I had a big problem with last names, because not only do Jason and Bruce share the same name, obviously Brandon and Shannon share his name as well. Johnny and Luke also share a last name, which is why their first names are used. I've made the formatting consistent now though, removing references to their last names after the first mention. Damien Linnane (talk) 11:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * For Bruce Lee, are you settling on referring to him as "Bruce" after the first mention? I do still see different names used for him in the article (although I think we can exempt references to full names in the infobox, Cast list section, and side boxes). I would also check references to Vivian Emergy. Let me know what you think. NTox · talk
 * I went through and yeah, turns out I did miss a couple instances of using Bruce's last name. I did leave one intact though. "According to Bruce Lee biographer Matthew ..." as saying 'According to Bruce biographer' doesn't work. I tried rewording it to remove the need to mention his last name but everything sounded awkward so I think it's best to leave it as is in this case. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I will be bold and add one more suggestion. In my view, the final sentence of the lead might be stronger if we remove "while filming The Crow", so it reads Dragon is dedicated to Brandon, who died several weeks before its release. That keeps the focus on Brandon and the film, and avoids prompting the reader to start wondering what happened during a film shoot unrelated to Dragon. The information can then be kept in the article body for people that are interested. NTox · talk 17:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good idea actually. Done. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I've made a reply to everything again. Let me know what you think. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 11:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your review . It was much more thorough than I anticipated, though I'm glad you did it as the article is much better now. As always let me know if there's anything else. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am happy to support this article. Your work to expand and overhaul its content will be appreciated by readers who choose to visit the page throughout the future. NTox · talk 06:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Coord note
I think we need a source review? --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have four supports, a source review and an image review. Do you seen any outstanding issues? Sorry to seem impatient, I'm just very keen for this to pass in time for me to nominate it for TFA for the 80th anniversary of Bruce's birth. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 08:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * What is the source for the cast list?
 * The credit list of the film itself, same as my other five film FAs, though I might add my GA reviewer asked me to add the cameo appearances. They don't appear in the same order in the credit list obviously. I'm happy to remove them.
 * They can be included, just suggest giving an explicit citation. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * FN1: see WP:ROTTEN
 * Changed source to British Board of Film Classification
 * BBFC should be listed as publisher not work. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * RT is still there as FN32?
 * I thought you were initially concerned about what I was using the source to back up in the infobox; that's what I changed initially. What's the issue with its usage in the reception section? If you're referring to the fact the film was released in 1993 whereas WP:ROTTEN has a sub-section on '2000s and beyond'; yes, I'm aware of this limitation. However, I don't think it is a concern at this article as from my study of the literature the consensus from the time it was released is consistent with the current consensus at RT. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that, but it would be more appropriate to cite that literature directly rather than relying on that site's interpretation. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed the RT source and replaced it with a lead sentence that summarises the consensus. Let me know if you think I should just remove the sentence entirely and lead with the individual reviews. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * FN2 is misformatted
 * Can you tell me what's wrong with it? If I've done something wrong I don't know what it is.
 * It's an edited book not an encyclopedia; the author's name is the wrong way round; chapter titles shouldn't be italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Template:Cite book says to use Template:Cite encyclopedia for 'edited collections'. Wouldn't this book count as an edited collection, since each chapter is written by a different academic author? If not, what template should I use? I've fixed the author name and italics in any case. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * cite book. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * FN6 should include timecodes. Ditto FN8
 * Several of my successful film FACs use director's commentary but I've never been asked to give timestamps before. I've just gone through the first dozen odd film featured articles as listed in alphabetical order at WP:FA. Of the first five films I found that use DVD commentary as a reference, three don't give timestamps, including The Beautician and the Beast which was only promoted last month, and Boys Don't Cry (film) which features almost as many inline citations to the commentary as my nomination. Is there a reason you're holding my nomination to a higher standard than others? And is this helpful in any case? I mean, in the unfathomably unlikely event that someone is going to go to the trouble to verify the commentary does in fact back up what it claims I'm pretty sure they'd listen to the whole thing if they've already gone to the trouble to access it.
 * Sure, someone could listen to the whole commentary, just as someone could read a whole book. But just as we use page numbers to cite specific facts to a specific part of a book, it's appropriate to include timecodes to cite specific facts to a specific part of the commentary. The relevant guideline is WP:PAGENUM. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it isn't a good idea in principle, I guess I'm asking why is it a requirement for me when most featured film articles aren't asked to do this? Damien Linnane (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * They should be. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I had to borrow a DVD player off a friend to watch the director's commentary in the first place; few people seem to still own them. I'll try and borrow it off them again soon to do this. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . Instead of using time-codes, would it be acceptable to just give the chapter the commentary appeared in, like they've done for the FA American Beauty (1999 film)? This will make the reference list more manageable, and will also clear up a problem I'm anticipating whereby the director comments on an issue repeatedly over a short period, rather than just once. Incidentally I'm just going to delete FN8 as it isn't needed; that sentence has alternate sourcing. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . This is done now. Let me know if there are any concerns. Damien Linnane (talk) 10:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Be consistent in whether newspaper citations include subtitles as part of the title
 * Done.


 * FN13: AllMusic is italicized here but in plain text in the article - why?
 * I guess I made a tiny mistake. Fixed.


 * Fn19 has a duplicated title
 * Fixed.


 * FN24: is this an authorized republication? Ditto FN27
 * I don't think so. I've changed them to offline citations.


 * What makes Fightland a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * They're a subject matter expert on martial arts (coverage of an actual martial arts fight is only thing they are cited for, rather than anything about film), and the author of the article is even a subject matter expert on Bruce Lee himself. He is the author of this notable book on Bruce, published by University of Nebraska Press.

Thanks for your review. Couple questions about points as listed above. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)