Talk:Lost Highway (film)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 20:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking this for review, will hopefully be able to get back soon with some feedback. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some issues that I would like to see addressed before I promote the article to GA:

I don't think there needs to be three different releases in the infobox. The first premiere (France) and general US release should be fine.

Done

The fact that the film was financed by a French production company could be mentioned in the lead, maybe in the second paragraph.

Done

I would like to see the cast section be sourced. My usual advice is for the nominator to find a source that lists the entire cast, and just have a line at the top or bottom of the section saying that is where the listing has come from.

Because the film is the primary source of the article, I think a basic cast list is acceptable without a reference to an outside source, similar to the infobox details or the plot section. If it's really an issue, I can explicitly cite the film's end credits.

I'm happy for you to have used the film to put the cast together, and no explicit cite is necessary for that since the infobox provides all of those detail already. I just think it is good practice to back-up these things with a third party source that people can get to easily. For instance, Call Me by Your Name (film) is another film article that I reviewed for GA, and you can see in the cast section there that I just got them to add a short line with a reference so a user can click on that if they wanted to verify the list / read more about it. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Added Fandango as a source.

"Within a month they had the script" -- is this missing the word "completed" or "finished"?

Replaced with "It took them one month to finish the script"

"Lost Highway was partially inspired by the O. J. Simpson murder case, which involved the arrest of a man who committed, and then denied, murder, even to himself" -- uhh, I don't know if that is a widely accepted fact to be honest.

Agreed, so I replaced the second part with "which involved the arrest of a man who denied murder"

Who is Hopper?

Nice find. I added a wikilink to Dennis Hopper.

Can you also clarify that it is his casting in Blue Velvet (I am assuming) that you are talking about there? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added the "for the film" bit. Hopefully it should be clearer now.

I don't mind the combining of the box office and release information here, but I do think that critical response should be separate from the release section (and can more than stand on its own).

In my opinion, having the reception section in the release section is perfectly fine and many film articles follow this structure, so I'm not sure what the issue is here. If the reception section were separate from the release section, then the home media section would appear before the reception and the article would not follow a chronological order; first, the film was released in theaters, then it was analized by critics, and then it was released on DVD. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know that other articles also do it like this, so I won't fight you on it, but I still would rather that the reception be separate from Release or at least come after the home media section. Theoretically, the reception section should be about the reception to the film itself, not any particular release of it, so putting the home media release after the reception as if it was a separate thing from the theatrically-released film seems a bit problematic to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point and I appreciate your interest, but I still think the current style makes more sense because the box office section is also a type of reception section. Usually, in articles about films, books, albums or video games, there are three types of reception sections: commercial performance (in that case box office), critical response, and legacy/retrospective reviews. The first two happen at release, while the third one doesn't. Also, changing the order of the sections can potentially confuse readers a bit because the article is written in a chronological order. --Niwi3 (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, like I said I am not going to fight you on this. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have a go at those, and let me know if you have any issues or questions. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamstom.97: Thank you for your review, really appreciated. I think I have fixed most of the issues you brought up and left some comments above. Please let me know what you think. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to a couple of your comments above. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think all of my points above have been covered. Now, I'm just wondering if we can beef up the number of images in the article. I think an image of Lynch somewhere in the article is an obvious add, and I'm sure you could come up with one more to do with another section (like filming, themes, or release) just to fill it out a bit. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamstom.97: Done --Niwi3 (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, that is all looking good to me now, and I think all the criteria is covered. Pass

- adamstom97 (talk) 23:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]