Talk:Cries and Whispers/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ssven2 (talk · contribs) 18:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. Thank you. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 18:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Wikilink "pudenda".
- It's a common dictionary term, though less so than cancer. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Bergman and Ullmann were in a romantic relationship, and their daughter Linn Ullmann appears as Maria's daughter and Anna's daughter in the photograph" — Do you mean she appear as both those daughters? specify clearly if so.
- Yes, the copyeditor removed that clarification. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No need to wikilink Linn Ullmann twice (Remove the link in the footnotes as you have already linked her in the "Casting" section).
- There's a huge amount of space between the Casting section and Notes section. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Academic Laura Hubner agreed with Varda Burstyn's view that Cries and Whispers depicts the suppression of women," — Burstyn is only mentioned once here. Where did Burstyn express his views? Do mention it in the article before stating about Hubner's opinions.
- Hunted down the ref. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"with Anna's dead daughter apparently audible at one point" — when?
- Dug this up, though unnecessary Ribbet32 (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Try to add separate headings for the "Critical reception" section in terms of adding sub-headings like "Contemporary reviews" and "Reflective reviews".
- Would just wind up with one-para sections and unwieldy TOC Ribbet32 (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I cannot believe I'm seeing this. It is bad enough to see editors erroneously using the phrase "Reflective reviews" instead of "Retrospective reviews", but it is appalling to see a GA Reviewer recommending an editor deliberately make such a mistake. This is why using simple English over latin terms is preferable whenever possible. -- 109.76.202.17 (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Add the years in which the films were made after each of the films you've mentioned (example: Persona (1966), Through a Glass Darkly (1961), Autumn Sonata (1978) etc).
- Added, many were already present. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Try to find the dates (date, month and year) of each of the award ceremonies (for consistency).
- You seriously think I didn't already try, and that 50K of content was added out of sheer laziness? Ribbet32 (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Ribbet32: I see your point. Its just that I found it quite surprising to see the BAFTA Awards especially not covering its ceremony date. It was only a minor concern anyway. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Remove all instances of links to The Criterion Collection in the references except the first instance, which is currently at reference number 9.
- Reference should be available for anyone who checks a particular footnote. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite "work=Rogerebert.com" as "publisher=RogerEbert.com". (reference number 14). Rewrite "work=Rogerebert.com" as "publisher=RogerEbert.com". (reference number 19 and 79).
- Adjusted Ribbet32 (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The URL in reference number 22 is dead/redirects to the main website. Find the URL or another one that explains its content. This link in the "External links" section (the last one: Cries and Whispers at the Ingmar Bergman Foundation) is also dead. Fix it.
- Rescued ref Ribbet32 (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In reference number 60, remove the author's name (written as "Staff") as it is just an unnamed correspondent who has penned it. It would be better to write the name of the author only if it is stated.
- Author is stated- as the Staff. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deitalicise Reelviews.net as "Reelviews.net" by writing "publisher=Reelviews.net" instead in reference number 82.
- OK Ribbet32 (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In reference number 85, rewrite "Votes for VISKNINGAR OCH ROP (1972)" as "Votes for Viskningar Och Rop (1972)" as all caps is generally not accepted as per Wikipedia norms. Also wikilink "British Film Institute" in the reference.
Same as reference number 85 for number 95. Rewrite "THE 46TH ACADEMY AWARDS" as "The 46th Academy Awards".
- Done Ribbet32 (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it from me. Really good work on one of Bergman's most accomplished and deeply explored films, thematically speaking. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 10:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.
Pass or Fail:

@Ribbet32: A few more minor issues were there, but I've fixed it myself. Congratulations. Another Bergman film article has become a GA. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]