Talk:Contagion (2011 film)/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Haon 2.0 (talk · contribs) 15:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Second Opinion

While I feel that this article is good, and am somewhat of a film buff, myself, I'm going to ask for a second opinion from a person who claims to be very knowledgeable about film and media.

What exactly do you need a second opinion about? Why did you pick up the review if you're not going to review? Ruby 2010/2013 19:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

A better question would be why is there a second opinion area in the first place? TBrandley 04:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

TBrandley, the second opinion option is typically used after the reviewer has conducted a review, listed the issues, and is unable to decide whether to pass, fail, or hold the article. What you did (not listing any issues/reviewing) and just asking for a second opinion, is not common practice, as it is basically just having another user review. I've given my insight below. TRLIJC19 (talk) 05:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Haon is the reviewer asking for a second opinion, not TBradley. Otherwise, I agree with everything you said (bar the speedy review). I'm still unsure why a second opinion was called for. Ruby 2010/2013 05:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

My bad, TBrandley. Oh and I wasn't going to give a full review, as it was just a second opinion. I encourage the original reviewer to give a detailed review; now that he/she has some insight. TRLIJC19 (talk) 05:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

As Haon 2.0 seems uninterested in doing full reviews (see User talk:Haon 2.0#Reviews of The Muppets (film)) and has had both other similar "feel that this article is good" reviews reversed by Wizardman (i.e., Talk:The Muppets (film)/GA1 and the since-deleted GA2), it would probably be best for you to simply complete the review. Otherwise, this review will never get properly done, and ought to go back into the reviewing pool for a fresh start. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to note: nominator DAP388 has requested a new reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

TRLIJC19 opinion

My opinion is that this article meets the GA criteria:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS| for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I'll be taking over this review, due to an apparent loss of interest from the original reviewer. I should be able to start by early tomorrow UTC. TRLIJC19 (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Review

• Lead: This sentence, "Principal photography started in Hong Kong in September, and encompassed a five months schedule that filmed in Chicago, Atlanta, London, Geneva, and San Francisco."- "months" should be singular.

• I think it should be "five-month schedule" with the hyphen, but there are more significant problems with this sentence and the Filming section that I am in the process of writing up. Please keep the review on hold until I finish later today. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Of course, sorry I missed those. TRLIJC19 (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

•  Done

• Plot: This sentence, "She later becomes infected with the disease after being in contact with contaminated fomites while staying at her hotel."- comma after 'fomites'.

•  Done

• Plot: Can some of these tiny paragraphs be merged? It is unnecessary for a long section of small paragraphs.

•  Done

• Themes: Can paragraphs 3 and 4 be merged?

•  Done

I'm placing this on hold so the above issues can be addressed, within 7 days. TRLIJC19 (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional comments

The "five-month schedule" question led me to the sentence itself at the end of the second lead paragraph, as noted above: "Principal photography started in Hong Kong in September, and encompassed a five months schedule that filmed in Chicago, Atlanta, London, Geneva, and San Francisco." This sentence does not have an analogue in the Production's Filming section, and is therefore unsourced in the article. The Filming section does give a date of September 2010 for a start of filming, and one San Francisco source, dated February 13, 2011 (the citation mistakenly says "February 23"), says that the Candlestick Park filming will end the following Wednesday, but without further definitively sourced information, the assertion of a "five-month schedule" cannot be justified in the lead: late September to mid February would be well under five, while early September to late February would be nearly six. If you specifically state in Filming that shooting wrapped up in February 2011 (sourced, of course), then the lead could say "and continued in Chicago ... San Francisco through February 2011."

•  Done

I found a number of additional issues in the section itself beyond the omission of the general statement of filming length and its sourcing:

• "Soderbergh opted to not to film in the studio": please delete a "to" or rephrase in some other way.

•  Done

• Jumbo Floating Restaurant section:

• "constituted for the setting of a casino": I can't make sense of this. Something like "was used instead as the setting for a casino" perhaps?
•  Done
• I think "elected" is the wrong word here; these are locals, and could easily be contractors rather than employees. Could be more concise.
•  Done

• the source mentions some Chicago-area filming that was for Chicago-based scenes as well, in addition to Minneapolis and Atlanta: there's even one scene shot in Waukegan to simulate Chicago's Dan Ryan Expressway. This needs to be reworded to reflect Chicago being used for itself as well as the other two cities.

•  Done

• the article conflates the General Jones Armory being used to construct an infirmary set with the use of Black Hawks and Humvees: the latter were not used for the infirmary set, but for a convoy scene on an expressway. They are adjacent in the source, but definitely distinct.

•  Done

• close paraphrasing: "upward of 100 uniformed personnel from California, Illinois and Georgia" in the source vs. "over one hundred military personnel from Illinois, California, and Georgia" in the article. Also, I would expect that 100 is the total from the three location shoots (Chicago area, Atlanta area, San Francisco area), and not just the Chicago filming.

•  Done

• in the final Filming paragraph, rather than "apart" (probably meant to be "a part"), "members" would be better unless it causes copyright issues

•  Done

• final sentence: the last clause is odd. The $60K was to rent Candlestick Park, but didn't pay for production, just for the site itself: six days at $10K/day.

•  Done

General comments on the Filming section:

• While not required for GA, the 80-word quote in the first paragraph starting "We can't cut to a city" and continuing through "we’re centered around that idea" really ought to be a blockquote; it's twice the maximum wordage for an inline quote according to WP:MOSQUOTE#Block quotations.

•  Done

• I recommend a paragraph break before "Principal photography began in Hong Kong"; in fact, the general statement of filming length could start the new paragraph.

•  Done

• It would help to make it clear that the Jumbo Floating Restaurant is in Hong Kong, not Macau.

•  Done

I think this could use another review pass: while I had only looked the lead and Filming, a last-minute glance at the beginning of "Soundtrack" turned up the word "guild", which should almost certainly be something else. —BlueMoonset (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Anything else? I apologize for the late response, as I was sick. —DAP388 (talk) 04:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hope you're feeling better. I did find a number of other things subsequent to the above, but thought I should wait to see whether TRLIJC19 was going to do another review pass before I posted them. One that is crucial:

• In the cast section, Gwyneth Paltrow: "a first time visitor to the city" is identical to the source, and must be paraphrased. There's also a misleading bit here: Paltrow was sent out to take photos by Soderberg because those pictures were to be used later in the film as ones her character, Beth, had taken while sightseeing. Not "to take photos of herself", as it says here.

I may do an editing pass later to fix other issues with the prose; I suspect it will take less time than trying to list them all for you to fix, and they do need fixing. You'll want to check to make sure my changes don't create further issues. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I am going to run it through a few more times. I have to go out right now, but I'll try to have it done by tonight. TRLIJC19 (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I was waiting for DAP388 to finish responses to your requests below before doing the editing; unfortunately, the article was passed within minutes of the completion with some prose issues still remaining. I'll work on them now, but don't be surprised to see significant changes over the next little while. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Final comments

• Cast: Can you give info/background on the other cast members/characters'?

  The only one I have come across that would be helpful to the article was an interview with Chin Han with Dread Central. I've seen some Cranston interviews, but he only talks about the premise of the film and his working experiences with Soderbergh, rather than talking about how he was casted or the personality of his character. I could not find any other useful information about the rest of the cast.

• Photos: The pictures are nice, and often the first thing the reader will see. That being said, I think the names should be in full and wikilinked. Also, move a couple pictures to the left, it is odd for them to be scattered on the right.

   Done with most of it. However, I am a little reluctant to wikilink Matt Damon and Kate Winslet, since their names are already wikilinked in the section.

• Filming: This sentence, "Arguably the largest sets were at the General Jones Armory, which was converted into an infirmary, and in Waukegan, where a portion of the Amstutz Expressway was used to simulate the Dan Ryan Expressway.[11][3]", move the references so it reads [3][11]

   Done

• Filming: Sentences generally should not start with 'because'. That said, this sentence: "Because of the restricted nature of the campus, producers were only allowed to shoot exterior scenes of the area.[12]", the 'Because' should be replaced.

   Done

• Filming: This sentence, "Other filming locations were established at Golden Gate Park, Chinatown, and Candlestick Park, of which $60,000 was allocated to rent out the latter area for six days.[13][3]", move the references so it reads [3][13]

   Done

• Soundtrack: This sentence: "Other aspects he work on was the tone, such as conveying fear and hope within the music.[15]" should instead read "Other aspects he worked on were the tone, [...]"

   Done

• Conception and writing: This sentence, " Intrigued with the field of transmission, Burns suggested that they create a film that centered around a pandemic situation." -- link pandemic, and unlink it in 'themes'.

   Done

• Themes: This sentence, "Steven Soderbergh was motivated to make an "ultra-realistic" film about the public health and scientific response to a pandemic.[17]" -- as I said unlink pandemic and also, link public health, and unlink it below.

   Done

• Critical response: Link Peter Bradshaw

   Done

Please address these, TRLIJC19 (talk) 04:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Should be good now. Sorry for the delay. :) —DAP388 (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS| for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

With all issues having been addressed, the article now meets the good article criteria, and is being promoted. TRLIJC19 (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.