Talk:Baby Driver/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: DanielleTH (talk · contribs) 16:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Will be taking a look at this article shortly. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 16:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Alright, proper review time. I'll do the obligatory mention that I, too, have a Good Article nominee, but, of course, you are under no obligation to review it. Do so only if you would like.

Anyways:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comments

Overall

As of December 27, 2018: This is very close to GA status. Minor clarifications are needed for sourcing and prose. My biggest concern right now appears to be neutrality and original research in the Analysis section, detailed blow. Please see full comments.

As of January 4, 2019: Just missing the finalized fixes for the Critical Reception and one phrasing fix.

As of January 11, 2019: All concerns addressed here. Article is well-written, broad in the discussion of the film, and is non-biased.

"Reasonably well-written"

• Plot summary
  • "Baby produces mixtapes sampled with recorded conversations and cares for his deaf foster father, Joseph (CJ Jones)." This sentence is particularly unclear in context, I think because it combines two separate ideas.

Revised

• • "The two immediately bond over their musical interests, so much that they vow to leave the city together." The "so much" is awkward. Maybe use a clearer "causing"?

Strongly disagree. I’d like to keep it, if you don’t mind, as I think "as much" is concise for what is intended.

The article is, in the end, your writing, so if you'd like to keep it this way, that is fine. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 03:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• • "At the debriefing for the follow-up assignment" what assignment? The heist mentioned before? This needs to be a tad clearer.

Correct. Revised.

• • "Doc nixes the heist plans as not only will the dealers' murders intensify the heat on him, but also the dealers were dirty cops on his payroll." Quite wordy and confusing to follow. Try breaking it up or just reducing the number of words in the sentence.

Reworded.

• • "Hostility flares when Buddy and Bats confront Baby over his tape recordings moments before he can depart Atlanta with Debora, though when they play the mixtapes for Doc, the crew are reassured of Baby's loyalty." Confusing, maybe try breaking it up?

Revised.

• • "He lends the couple cash and an escape route out of the country." He lended an escape route? Maybe say "and suggests an escape route"?

Revised.

• • Parking garage most definitely does not need to be linked, as most people know what it is.

Revised

• Cast
  • Jon Hamm's section: "Hamm partook in a table read well before Baby Driver was commissioned by a studio." "Well before" is a little vague. The source doesn't give a year unfortunately, but it does say "several years" at the very least. That's more specific than "well before", so that may be preferable.

Revised.

• • Jon Bernthal's section: "assorted thugs"? What do you mean by assorted? Is simply saying "thugs" not enough?

Revised at second glance. Probably redundant since it's already been established that this is a rotating crew.

• • Other cast members: Semicolons separate related-but-separate ideas. Simple commas would be better suited here.

Revised.

• Development
  • "On a £25,000 budget, Wright developed the music video for Mint Royale's "Blue Song" in 2003, featuring a backstory gleaned from Baby Driver." Featuring ideas from Wright's early concepts of Baby Driver? If yes, please clarify that.

Correct. Revised for clarification.

• • "for not only its artistic direction" specify "the film" or "Baby Driver" here, as the sentence is unclear.

Unclear. Shaun of the Dead is the subject in that sentence.

So the artistic direction mentioned in the sentence was Shaun of the Dead's? The "its" is the only thing I think needs clarification, I can't tell waht the "its" is referring to.DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 03:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Correct. DAP 💅 04:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• • "In addition, Machliss worked on set providing input for the shoot, unusual given that film editors are typically absent from the set of most films during production." Grammar fix: add "which was" before "unusual".

Done.

• Stunts and choreography
  • "They rehearsed at the Atlanta Motor Speedway before receiving clearance to shoot in the city, and the production filmed the stunts with specialized pursuit cranes, small cars with an installed camera crane." Confusing due to being a run-on. Maybe split them up into two sentences.

Done.

• • "This scene involved a number of high-speed jumps, barrier jumps, among other stunts that Prescott and his team carefully coordinated bearing traffic flow in mind, and 50 production vehicles encircled by a sprawling police motorcade, occupying all lanes of I-85." Confusing and unclear, I'm not quite sure what this sentence is going for. Maybe splitting it up would help clarity?

To illustrate the complexity of that shoot. Admittedly not sure how to go about this, since I think the idea is clear enough presently.

Upon a second re-read this sentence is passable. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 03:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• • "Choreographing others sets was sometimes less taxing because some of the actors had prior dance experience." Wordy, and I don't believe "others" grammatically correct. You many want to specify who since the source says Elgort and Fox were the two with experience, and specificity is always better for clarity's sake.

Revised.

• Sound design: "Perhaps the audio team's most complex challenge was the coffee run scene." Too ambiguous, and truthfully, not needed. Same thing with the "so forth" in the following sentence, since it doesn't specify what. Personally, the 25 takes implies that it was a complex undertaking, so you may want to omit the "Perhaps" sentence completely.

Revised the former, not the latter. There were two other things mentioned in that interview that I didn’t include because I struggled with the wording (without close paraphrasing), hence the "so forth".

• Box office: "Although the film's performance faltered in China" how? Why (which would go in the release section)? How much did it make, and what were expectations?

Unable to find any Chinese box office forecasts. Western media picked up the story because China was the only major market where Baby Driver flopped. I can remove it if that is not notable on its own though.

China is a major market and should be mentioned. If that's the only thing you could find about the market, then it's good.DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 03:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Verifiability

• Filming: "Panavision's Atlanta offices assisted the needs of the production when managing the logistics became challenging. One action scene in particular, staged in a parking garage on the Atlanta Falcons' training facility, was only available for film production at night, and thus difficult to shoot because of the dull lighting. They ended up filming the scene in digital format with the company's refurbished Arri Alexa cameras, which had greater exposure latitude." Duplicate and/or move around sources to have the first two sentences have a citation. Currently just listing them at the end makes it unclear which source provided which information.

Done.

• Visual effects
  • "Few visual effects were used in Baby Driver as a result of Wright's emphasis on practical filmmaking." Citation needed here.

Done.

• • "The London-based studio DNEG created the visuals effects, under the supervision of Stuart Lashley and Shailendra Swarnkar." Duplicate citation #47 and put it after this sentence. The next citation after this line is #49 which isn't sufficient for this kind of information.

Done.

• Home media and streaming: ComingSoon.net doesn't appear to be reliable.
• Accolades: Awards Daily is a self-published blog by Sasha Stone, and cannot be used.
• Sequel: /Flim is a blog and does not appear to be reliable.

Removed Awards Daily, but ComingSoon.net and SlashFilm are indeed reliable, or at least I assume, since I’ve seen many good/featured articles with their sourcing such as Prometheus.

Neutrality

• Development: Sensation --> success. Appears when talking about the music video. Bit of a grandiose word, success is more neutral.

Done.

• Stunts and choreography "So with such a small window" change to "With the limited timeframe". I have concerns with the connotation of this so change it to be more neutral.

Done.

• Sound design: quite ---> more. Appears in the section about Baby's tinnitus. Again, I have connotation concerns.

Done.

• Box office: "exceeded $100M". The source provides the actual number, $102.2M, so to keep the POV neutral, just say the number.

Done.

• Critical response
  • The neutrality is my biggest concern. The film was widely praised, so praise can take up the majority of the section, but I still feel criticisms are not given their due weight, especially with certain criticisms being reduced to occasional or deemed less important through word choice (like "nevertheless"). I also feel like the sources don't match up with the text -- the source of "occasional" screenplay criticism does not deem the criticism occasional. The opening statement with "American media" is far too general, though you could say it appeared at #20 on Metacritic's 2017 year end list. Claiming certain praise was unanimous is false, even with the three sources provided, since, even within one of them, Elgort's performance is labeled annoying. It is very unlikely every notable critic who reviewed the film liked the actors' performance. You could say the praise was widespread, though. Basically, just provide a little bit more on criticism to give it its due weight and ensure that words of high praise (and harsh criticism) are cited and directly come from the article, not loosely. Good examples of widely praised films with good acknowledgement of criticism are La La Land and Black Panther. The blockquote also appears to just highlight praise. An image of an actor or crew member widely praised may be better suited.

Revised some word choices. I'll try and spend the next few days making more adjustments, but I'd like to retain the section's current format per WP:Reception.

• Sequel: "began as early as December 2017" needs to be neutral POV. I suggest either removing the "as early as", the information is fine without it.

Done.

The Analysis section

Giving this its own section as I have multiple problems with it. First, it really should be titled themes, since that what the section appears to be, per MOS:FILM. Like the critical reception section, some sources too loosely relate to information, and, neither source labels the story a redemption story. Source 64 mentions redemption, but not in that context. Source #67 does relate to some pieces of it, so it should be named, duplicated, and put next to said information, for clarity's sake. Overall though, this paragraph and the whole section does appear to have a decent amount of original research, which needs to be sourced or omitted accordingly.

A few edits, added direct cites so the reader won't assume that I (or any other editor) aren't the ones making the judgments.

Changes look good! DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 03:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Please see above for summary. I await your changes, and great job overall on the article, DAP388! DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 20:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi DanielleTH, appreciate you taking up this review. It's been a busy week for me, and hence I haven't had the luxury to devote much time to this as I'd like, so I apologize. I’ll try and finish up over the next few days. In the mean time, let me know what you think! DAP 💅 04:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@DAP388: All of your changes look great, I've adjusted everything accordingly. The only thing that still needs to be fix seems to be the Critical Reception section, and that one sentence in the Development section! Take your time! DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 03:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

DanielleTH, I believe I’ve addressed the issues in the critical response section. Let me know what you think! DAP 💅 04:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks great. Congratulations DAP388, Baby Driver is now a Good Article! DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 00:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)