Talk:Whisky Galore! (1949 film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 00:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed reviewing your article on Passport to Pimlico a few months ago, so I'm happy to offer a review here, too. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is "the Biffer" a nickname? If not, what's a biffer?

Yes, a nickname (we never find out about his real name); should this be in inverted commas? - The Bounder (talk) 09:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's alright as is, but did throw me initially. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"This proves fortunate, as Campbell rescues the Biffer when he is trapped in the sinking freighter." What does that have to do with him being in his room?
I note that we have a free image of Mackenzie (File:Compton Mackenzie.jpg) which you can use if you like. We don't seem to have any of the actors, sadly; that's why I've put the columns in the castlist. Feel free to remove them if you're not keen.

Excellent: I went through the cast, producer and director and found nothing - I forgot to check Mackenzie! No problems on the columns - I'm not normally a fan, but they work well enough here.

I'd move "themes" to after "production", personally. I see, though, that your approach is suggested by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film, so I'm certainly not going to push it!

I'll have a think about this one - we have this format for Pimlico too. - The Bounder (talk) 09:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Like other Ealing comedies produced by the studio" Is "produced by the studio" necessary?

Cut - The Bounder (talk) 09:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The film was one of three comedies to be produced simultaneously, alongside Passport to Pimlico and Kind Hearts and Coronets; all three were released into UK cinemas over two months." I find these sentences a little choppy; could it perhaps be reworked a little?
- How does it look now? - The Bounder (talk) 09:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, much clearer. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need the location in the Fidler source?

Possibly not, but being British, "Joplin" refers to Scott or Janice, so having the state (more than the town of Jplin) places it somewhere. (I know it's only a thin rationale, and if you would like consistency with the others, then I'll happily remove it). - The Bounder (talk) 09:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the motivation, but I'd support removing it; the lack of consistency with other sources is just as likely to lead to confusion, I fear. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very happy with the sources cited, though I am left wondering if there is more to pull out of them. Certainly not something necessary at this stage, but if you plan to take the article to FAC, it's something to think on.

There isn't much more that could be pulled out I don't think. Sadly this one will never get to FA status given the lack of depth of sources - it's a light comedy, with no great theme(s) running though, and it hasn't come to stand for a new movement, or have a deep legacy. Still, it's a lovely and perfectly formed 82 minutes of 1940s joy as far as I am concerned! - The Bounder (talk) 09:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, no comments. I enjoyed the article very much, but I note that I have done quite a bit of editing; please double-check to make sure you're happy with my changes, and, if not, we can work something out. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for picking this up too. I'm happy with most of the edits, except adding the US title so prominently in the opening line. We cover the US name in the last paragraph of the lead, and I always think as a reader that there is no need for additional prominence for a country uninvolved in a film's production (otherwise we may as well list all these in there too!) (I've bolded the US title in the last paragraph, which should help with the identification for US readers). I'll work through your other comments shortly, but they all seem to be fairly straightforward at the moment. Thanks again. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 07:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All your comments covered - hopefully appropriately! Please let me know if you wish me to revisit anything for further editing or comment. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 09:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's one comment outstanding, and I've left some replies. Understood on the US title, and I am happy with your alternative (that said, I do think there's sense in differentiating between an alternative English-language title and a "mere" foreign title, but, as I say, I'm happy). Josh Milburn (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J Milburn, sorry I missed the plot tweak, but I've done that now, and removed Joplin too. Thanks very much for your help on this. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very happy with how this is looking, so happy to promote. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn, That's great news - thank you so much! All the best, The Bounder (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing the article! Great working with you again; I'll keep my eyes open for your articles in the future. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]