Talk:Wong Kar-wai/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GeneralPoxter (talk · contribs) 04:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead/infobox

Reads well

Biography

~~... for which he was nominated at the 7th Hong Kong Film Awards.~~ According to the source, it should be "co-nominated"? Also see IMDB as source concerns below.

Y Replaced with HKFAA, which credits Wong as the sole screenwriter. Ippantekina (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~It was also a critical success, as several journalists named Wong among the "Hong Kong New Wave".~~ These two clauses don't connect logically, because being considered part of a "New Wave" isn't necessarily praise.

Y

~~He was eager to make something more unusual, and the success of As Tears Go By made this possible.~~ In what way did the film's success make this possible? Does Bettinson specify?

Y Clarified. Ippantekina (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~... Days of Being Wild is described by Brunette ...~~ First mention of Peter Brunette should be full name + his authority (e.g. is he a film scholar, critic, etc.?)

Y

~~In 2008, Wong reworked the film and re-released it as Ashes of Time Redux.~~ Needs a cite here.

Y

~~Christopher Doyle only needs to be mentioned in full once.~~ (I did one change to just "Doyle", but you can do the rest)

Y

~~Although it contained new characters, Wong conceived both films as complementary studies of Hong Kong ...~~ Dangling modifier.

Y

... while Zhang Ziyi played Gong Er. It should be briefly clarified what role Gong Er plays in the film.

Y Removed Zhang Ziyi since she is not the film's star (Ip Man--Tony Leung)

Regarding the long quote at the end of this section: a) is all of this even necessary in the first place, could a summary suffice? and b) where is the source for this quote?

Y Removed the quote, and rewrote the last paragraph. Ippantekina (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consider making Early life and career beginnings its own level 2 section, while renaming the rest of Biography as Career? What we have here isn't necessarily a biography, since it focuses more on Wong's filmmography than his life as a whole.

Y That's a good suggestion. Ippantekina (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

Section seems rather short compared to that of other famous film directors. Would be nice if it were expanded more, but since I'm not very familiar with Wong's life and can't offer any specific pointers, this could be considered optional for our review.

Wong is a notoriously private person so that is the best we've got. Ippantekina (talk) 05:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Filmmaking

... while some of the international names associated with Wong ... "Associated" seems vague here; should it be something along the lines of influences?

Y Clarified.

... and forbids his actors from using "techniques" What exactly is "techniques" referring to? Improvisation could be considered an acting technique, but Wong allows it, so this wording here needs to be clarified.

Y Removed ambiguous phrase.

Stephen Schneider, Stephen Teo, Ty Burr, and Peter Brunette only need to be mentioned by their full names once in the article.

Y

I don't think the actors need to be linked again in this section.

Y

Biancorosso should be referred to by his full name since it's the first time he is mentioned in the article's prose.

Y

Brief authority/background needed for Julian Stringer and Curtis K. Tsui (are they filmmakers, critics, etc.?)

Y

Recognition and impact

Domestically, his films are generally not financial successes... Past tense here?

Y

Filmography and awards

... by the French Minister of Culture. Maybe link to the article on the person who was served as Minister of Culture at the time?

Y

References

Do you believe the IMDB citations satisfy WP:CITEIMDB? I believe this article's use cases fall under disputed uses?
Ref 2: Should be last, first author citation?
Ref 6: Needs an archive link? Current url redirects to Film4 main page.
Ref 90: Concerns over source's verifiability/reliability. Does not appear to be a reviewed/edited source, and gives me the impression of somebody's blog.
Ref 169: "Under the Influence" isn't the title of the article. Is an author attribution possible for this source?
Ref 170: Needs author + publisher info
Other sources appear fine.

Done all except the Blueberry interview source. The website does appear fishy, but it seems to be a website for obscure i.e. indie or foreign film industry workers. As this source is used for direct quotes, I think it is fine. Ippantekina (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decision

I made a lot of minor copyedits as I reviewed; feel free to revert any of them if they are not satisfactory to you.

Thank you for the review. Please proceed with the GAN until you put it on hold. Ippantekina (talk) 04:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this month has been unanticipatedly busy for me. I am likely going to put this on hold, but I don't think I'll have the proper time to review the remainder of the article + check the references until next week. Feel free to get a head start on the current comments though. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 04:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ippantekina, the article overall seems well-researched and well on its way to meeting Good Article criteria. I will be putting this nomination on hold until January 1, 2022. Please reach out if you have any questions about my comments. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 20:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralPoxter: Hello, thank you very much for reviewing the article. As I will be on holiday from Christmas till new year, could this be adjourned till 5 January at most? Sorry for the inconvenience. Merry Christmas, Ippantekina (talk) 08:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, no problem. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed all of your comments. Thank you very much for the review and the wait! Ippantekina (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ippantekina: Ref 6 still appears to redirect to the Film4 home page for me, which is concerning, since it's cited multiple times in the article. Other than that, the other changes look good to me. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 14:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added archiveurls to all references, including the Film4 one. Ippantekina (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All right, looks great. Passing GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]