Talk:Wings (1927 film)/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 17:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC) I'll take up this review as requested. I will leave down the initial comments within 24 hours or earlier! I mainly focus on copyediting issues as well. Jaguar 17:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    It is well referenced.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Sorry for coming to the review a bit late. I've had one of the worst days... Jaguar 21:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Initial comments[edit]


  • "Wellman was hired as he was the only director in Hollywood at the time who had World War I combat pilot experience, although Richard Arlen and John Monk Saunders had also served in the war as military aviators." - I assume these two are directors at the time, but the sentence doesn't specify who they were?
Above it says Richard Arlen in the cast and that John Monk Saunders wrote the story.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "Acclaimed for its technical prowess and realism upon release, the film became the yardstick for which future aviation films" - this doesn't have to be changed, but what does 'yardstick' mean in terms of film releases? Is it an American dialect?

Yes, it's probably more common in the US, but the source describes it as such. I suppose in British English it would be called the "benchmark". Just means that it set a high standard for other films to follow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

  • The lead itself complies per WP:LEAD!

Script and experience[edit]

  • "knowing "exactly what he wanted", bringing with it a "no-nonsense attitude" according to Lawrence H. Suid" - it does not specify who Lawrence H. Siud is?
Added.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Release and reception[edit]

  • "Wings was an immediate success upon release, and became the yardstick..." - yardstick is mentioned here again, if you could clarify the meaning in the lead then this one can be clarified too. It doesn't matter if it can't be clarified though....
I think it's a common term, especially in the US.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

On hold[edit]

This sounds like an epic film and I keep forgetting that it's silent! It is also an epic article that gathered around 7300 views in the past 15 days and an honourable one as it was the first ever film that gained an Oscar. The article has very little problems with it, the lead complies per WP:LEAD, the prose is good, all of the references are in check and there are next to no problems with this article apart from those minor copyediting issues I had mentioned above. I'll put this on hold for seven days and will happily give it its deserved GA status once those minor points have been addressed to! Jaguar 21:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Not really an epic film. The romance part of the plot is a bit wish washy, but given the period the aerial sequences are definitely impressive. Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans, The Jazz Singer, or Lang's Metropolis (film) (although ineligible) were more worthy Best Picture candidates for 1927 IMO. Still, technically a very impressive film for the period.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Close - promoted[edit]

The article now definitely meets the GA criteria - the only disappointment is the length of this review! Just comes to show how well made this article is. All sections are written well, references are in check and all of the issues mentioned above have been dealt with. There is nothing much to say other than well done on building this up to a GA standard! I only thought that this was an epic film due to its aerial sequences but maybe I'm wrong... Jaguar 21:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

It's very good you can watch it here although I vaguely recall there's adverts or something every 5 minutes. But watch this of the same year and you'll see what I mean!! Pales in comparison overall! Metropolis is a brilliant masterpiece which rates among the best films ever made IMO as does that Dr. Caligari I mentioned previously from 1920. I may have that (Metropolis (1927 film) at GAN in the near future, the current article is pretty good, needs mainly a sourcing overhaul and some additions. Wings is definitely special as the first Oscar though and aviation fanatics love it! Thanks for the review! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)