Wikipedia

Talk:Bone Tomahawk/GA1

< Talk:Bone Tomahawk
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Sinoam in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago38 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 17:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

{{doing}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC) Woop, I was sitting here thinking the GA nom was on hold for weeks, but it apparently didn't save. Sorry for the delay! Overall, the article is a good start, but there's stumbling issues throughout in terms of organization, referencing, and prose. Comments as follows:Reply

It's alright. Just a bit busy at the moment but I'll try to answer the concerns below as quick as possible. - 祝好，Sinoam(聊天) 13:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Prose:
    • Zahler had previously written two novels and screenplays in the Western genre, making Bone Tomahawk his fifth Western work — it seems weird to me we mention the number of novels, but not screenplays, and then add it up at the end. Could be simplified.
        Done Changed to "Zahler had previously written four Westerns, making Bone Tomahawk his fifth work in the Western genre." - 祝好，Sinoam(聊天) 14:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
    • Quote marks need to be converted to straight quotes, per MOS:QUOTEMARKS. Also, there shouldn't be any contractions outside of quotes.
        Done - 祝好，Sinoam(聊天) 15:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
    • Zahler took satisfaction while creating Bone Tomahawk, in preserving within the film much of the original script — I have no real idea what this is trying to say. Most films keep to a script. If the point is Zahler tried to create the film with as few edits to the original draft, that could be better, but until this point we haven't even mentioned the script, which is implied to have been a recent and bespoke creation. I would just remove this line as it's not telling us much.
        Done Removed - 祝好，Sinoam(聊天) 15:07, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
    • I think overall the article relies on quotes, or overly-long quotes, rather than summaries too much. E.g. Zahler incorporated some details of his personal life into the script, remarking: "Most characters I write have some attributes in common with me, and some attributes that are not. Certainly when Brooder says: ‘Smart men don’t get married’, everyone who knows me is thinking of me. ‘That’s something Zahler would say.’" and "I’m not married and don’t have any interest in it." — the entire last line, besides being confusingly marked by quotes, is redundant with the previous sentences. This dovetails with a feeling of peacocky and POV language throughout, where the article is excessively privileging the opinions of the director (who gets to decide he's "invulnerable" to violence?)
        Done Removed invulnerable to violence mention and reformatted several, if not all, long quotes. - 祝好，Sinoam(聊天) 15:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
    • The following paragraphs is just westerns Zahler didn't like? Why is this mentioned here? It feels like it should belong earlier when he's talking about developing a western in response to films in the genre he didn't like.
        Not done Due to chronological reasons. He watched all those Western films to critique what he didn't like back in 2005. - 祝好，Sinoam(聊天) 21:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
    • Dallas Sonnier praised the script for Bone Tomahawk, and pledged to be faithful to it, — Why is the producer the one pledging to be faithful to the script? And why is it relevant he praised it? I don't think producers generally go around bad-mouthing their projects. If the point is that he didn't want investors to make changes, just say that instead of beating around the bush.
        Done Removed and adjusted the following sentence. - 祝好，Sinoam(聊天) 21:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
      New sentence: Despite Sonnier's assurances the there will be no intervention in the script, investors still wanted the script to be changed due to conflicting interpretations of the film’s genre, and the film being Zahler’s directorial debut. - 祝好，Sinoam(聊天) 21:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
    • When selling the movie to investors, Zahler used directors such—this stuff here seems again out of sequence, since we've gone from finding investors to the final budget, back to finding investors.
        Done Moved to the first sentence of the paragraph - 祝好，Sinoam(聊天) 21:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
    • On October 2, 2014, Dave Halls was hired as first assistant director of Bone Tomahawk.[14] How relevant is this? 1st ADs are not a hugely important role to a general audience. The inclusion of a date also makes things more confusing; it implies everything before that point happened before October 2014 but there's no signposts that verify this. (This also sounds redundant, because the next section also starts with the exact same "on this date" opener.)
        Removed - 祝好，Sinoam(聊天) 21:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
    • Again, out of order info: why are details from October in casting coming before September casting? Also, why are you giving details about specific roles? We already got a full cast list after the plot section.
        Done Removed redundancy of mentioning roles again and fixed date. - 祝好，Sinoam(聊天) 15:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
    • There's a examples of either overlinking (a la Dallas Sonnier getting multiple wikilinks in the same section) or bad linking (stuff like Fantastic Fest not getting linked in its first use in a caption, but getting linked in an image further down.) Please check those.
        Done Fixed. - 祝好，Sinoam(聊天) 19:14, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
    • Russell's agent Michael Cooper handed over the script of Bone Tomahawk to Sarsgaard, who was originally cast to play Arthur O'Dwyer. Why is this coming after we got the information that Russell was cast? Why is the agent's name important? Why are we mentioning it's the Bone Tomahawk script (isn't that a given?)
        Done Changed to Kurt Russell's agent handed over the script to Peter Sarsgaard, who enjoyed the script and signed on to the movie, leading to him passing the script off to Russell. Moved all info regarding Russell reading the script and his thoughts into a singular paragraph and moved it to the first paragraph of the section. - 祝好，Sinoam(聊天) 21:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
    • The actors were all onboard on the script What does this mean?
        Removed Means that the actors all like the script, though in this context, is redundant and irrelevant. - 祝好，Sinoam(聊天) 21:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
    • Excessively long quote from the composer.
        Done Shortened quote. - 祝好，Sinoam(聊天) 21:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
    • The reception section needs a lot of work in reorganization. It shouldn't just be a list of critics and pull quotes, but go through the various aspects of the film and how they were received. See WP:RECEPTION for some advice on this.
        Done Renovated. - 祝好，Sinoam(聊天) 00:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • References:
  • Media:
    • Images look appropriately sourced and licensed.

Placing the article on hold. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Won't be able to get to it until the Holidays due to finals. Hopefully you can wait! - 祝好，Sinoam(聊天) 00:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
I'm happy to keep it open longer for the end of the year. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Hey Sinoam how is this going? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I'm a bit busy from internship stuff. However, I've already started brainstorming the reception section a couple days ago. - 祝好，Sinoam(聊天) 21:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Sinoam Have you addressed all the above points so I can review? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
@David Fuchs Sorry for the extremely late response. All the points are addressed. - 祝好，Sinoam(聊天) 23:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I performed a [ further edit] to trim some more redundancies. You also have an issue with shifting tense (some stuff is given in the past, some present.) Not sure if I got all of the relevant ones switched to past, so something to keep an eye out on. With the other issues addressed above, I think it's now up to GA quality, so I'm passing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Much appreciated! Thank you for your time! Sorry that this was late. - 祝好，Sinoam(聊天) 21:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bone_Tomahawk/GA1&oldid=1139190566"