Talk:Lord of War/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: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 01:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

General comments

• The article could in general do with a thorough copyediting to improve prose quality, particularly in the "Plot" section. The WP:Guild of Copyeditors could perhaps help with this, if you don't feel up to it yourself. You could also ask for advice on how to write plot section, specifically, at WT:FILM.
• The article relies fairly heavily on interviews and the "making of" documentary. Articles should ideally use sources further removed from the subject than that.
• Apart from the "Critical reception" subsection, the article is rather thin.
• The structure is a bit unintuitive to me at times. I might suggest turning to WT:FILM for advice on this (as well as reading MOS:FILM).

Lead

• The budget in the infobox is unsourced.
• Taking place in the early 1980s – the film takes place over a much longer stretch of time than that. The dissolution of the Soviet Union is a major plot point.
• Securing funding for the film was difficult as it was pitched shortly before the Iraq War, resulting in many American studios being unwilling to take it on. As a result, funding was achieved through debt taken on with Citibank West, the VIP3 German tax fund, and foreign sales. All remaining costs were paid by French producer Philippe Rousselet. – this seems disproportionately detailed for the WP:LEAD.
• Review aggregators Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes gave the film a score of over 62%, indicating "generally favorable reviews" – this is not correct. Neither gave it over 62%. The Rotten Tomatoes score is 62%, and the Metacritic score is 62 out of 100 (not strictly speaking a percentage). The "generally favorable reviews" part only applies to Metacritic.
• The Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes, and Cinemascore ratings are rather dubious to include in the lead.
• Amnesty International endorsed it for highlighting the danger of an uncontrolled global arms trade. – that the film does so is an opinion, and this phrasing puts that opinion in WP:WikiVoice (that is to say, this phrasing results in Wikipedia agreeing with Amnesty rather than just reporting what they said). This recurs in the body.
• There are five paragraphs in the lead, two of which are single-sentence paragraphs.

Plot

• This section is rather heavy on links. Not all of them are necessary.
• Ava follows him one day, unaware that Interpol is following her, and they both discover the shipping container that holds his arms-dealing office. – "they both"? Ava is a person whereas Interpol is an organization.

Production

• The idea for Lord of War originated prior to 2004 when an agent of the Creative Artists Agency gave Philippe Rousselet the script – surely the starting point should be the writing of the script?
• The idea for Lord of War originated prior to 2004 when an agent of the Creative Artists Agency gave Philippe Rousselet the script – this is the first time Rousselet is mentioned after the lead. The reader should be informed who he is (and the name should be linked).
• The idea for Lord of War originated prior to 2004 when an agent of the Creative Artists Agency gave Philippe Rousselet the script – this wording is ambiguous. Is it "originated prior to [2004 when an agent] [...]" or "originated [prior to 2004] when an agent [...]"? In other words, was the script given to Rousselet in 2004 or prior to 2004 (the rest of the paragraph makes it clear that it has to be the latter as it was before the start of the Iraq War, which began in 2003, but the reader shouldn't have to do the mental legwork of figuring that out).
• but could not find an American studio that would take it on, as it was right before the beginning of the Iraq War – should probably explain why that made them unwilling to do so.
• An additional setback was that scenes in the script were written to occur in up to 13 different countries – that's not a setback; a setback is unexpected. I might describe it as a complicating factor, perhaps.
• as the expected expenses increased, Section 48 laws disqualified the film from making use of it – I'm going to go out on a limb and say most readers will not be sufficiently familiar with the relevant laws to understand what this means.
• As with Rousselet, Amir Mokri should be introduced and linked at first mention.
• Amir Mokri made it a point to have the camera move as Yuri moved, in reference to Yuri's constant travelling as an arms dealer. – this is interesting, but it seems a bit out of place in this section and shouldn't have an entire separate paragraph devoted to it.
• The "Yuri Orlov inspiration" subsection seems a bit out of place here.
• Using a photograph of a living person in handcuffs should probably be avoided when there are other options available.
• Screen Rant is a barely-reliable low-quality source that should really only be used for straightforward statements of fact within its area of competency (entertainment, roughly speaking), and then only if no better source can be used instead. It should never be used for anything controversial, WP:BLP material, or any kind of analysis.
• In 2015, the National Security Archive reported that Yuri was primarily based on Sarkis Soghanalian, an Armenian-Lebanese arms dealer. – what the source says is "he was an inspiration for Nicholas Cage's character Yuri Orlov in the 2005 film, Lord of War", a significantly weaker statement.

Release

• Avoid "internationally" when you mean "outside the US and Canada". See MOS:DOMESTIC.
• Giving details about the opening weekend in the US and Canada but no information about any other territories apart from the combined gross in all of them is a pretty clear example of WP:Systemic bias.
• The "Critical reception" subsection is rather heavy on verbatim quotes. It would probably be better to paraphrase and summarize a bit more than is done currently.
• listed by the British Film Institute as an inspired opening sequence of the 21st century – the BFI is generally speaking a good source to use, but a listicle like this is not really.
• Comic Book Resources is similar in quality to Screen Rant, and what I said about the latter above also applies to the former. This article might be an exception as a review seeing as the author is a Rotten Tomatoes-approved critic, but I would avoid using it unless it makes some valuable point that no other source makes.
• Shortly after the film released Amnesty International, a non-governmental organization focusing on human rights, endorsed the film for illustrating the danger of international arms trade when left unchecked. – I don't think this counts as an accolade, exactly.

Home media

• I am not convinced dvdsreleasedates.com counts as a reliable source.

Sequel

• was scheduled to begin filming in the fall of 2023. It was delayed by eight months – it should be made more clear whether it was delayed eight months to the fall of 2023 or from the fall of 2023.
• Linking to the more general strike action rather than the more specific 2023 Writers Guild of America strike and 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike is a bit odd.
• Cage is returning – we can say that he is reported to be, or that he will (reportedly) be, but not that he is until the movie has entered production.

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   See my comments above.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   See my comments above on the WP:LEAD in particular.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   See my comments above.

   C. It contains no original research:

   See my comments above.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig reveals no copyvio, and I didn't spot any instances of unacceptably WP:Close paraphrasing.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   The article is, as noted above, rather thin on most fronts. A pretty clear example where something is missing is that the pre-production section starts with the script already written.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   The article does not at all times distinguish between facts and opinions sufficiently clearly, as noted.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   The poster is fair use, and the other image is PD.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This is a decent start for an article, but it needs more work to become a WP:Good article.

@Sirdog: Thank you for your work on the article, and your first WP:Good article nomination. I'm closing this as unsuccessful, as the article does not currently meet the WP:Good article criteria and getting it up to those standards would both take more time and effort than I can reasonably expect you to devote to it within the near future. As such, I think it better to close this now so you can work on improving the article at your own pace without the pressure of a looming deadline. This also means that you can get a fresh assessment once you're done, assuming you choose to renominate it (which I would encourage).

The strongest part of the article is by far the "Critical reception" subsection. It is plain to see that a fair amount of time, thought, and care went into writing it (as well as just locating the relevant sources). I would suggest as a first step for improving the article that you attempt to find additional sources on the production aspect of the film, and then perhaps sources analysing the film (as opposed to reviewing it—though the lines get fuzzy at times). I am confident you can expand and improve this article even further, and I look forward to seeing it renominated in the future. TompaDompa (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2024 (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.