Talk:Passport to Pimlico

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Passport to Pimlico/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 15:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Happy to offer a review. I've not seen the film, but hopefully that won't stand in the way! Josh Milburn (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• Not the biggest problem, but I feel that the lead could be beefed out a little. Maybe you could merge the first two paragraphs and expand what is currently the third?
  • I've had a go at re-working along the lines you've suggested, with some new information brought up from the text and a better picture overall of the film I hope. - The Bounder (talk) 09:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• The links in footnotes 9 and 31 are broken.
  • 9 is working for me - although 2 had the wrong year, which I've fixed. I've also fixed 31. - The Bounder (talk) 07:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• Is it the whole of Pimlico which becomes part of the House of Bergundy (plot) or a "small part" of it (lead)?
  • A small part - I've added that to the plot - The Bounder (talk) 07:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• We have some great free images of some of the cast members; if I were you, I'd take advantage of that fact and drop a few around the article.
  • Surprisingly few. Aside from Holloway, there are onbly two more modern images (25+ years after the film was made) which I have now added. - The Bounder (talk) 07:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• Perhaps a mention of the character of the professor could be added to the plot, given that she is mentioned in another section.
  • Yes, I've now added a brief mention in the right part. - The Bounder (talk) 07:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• Personally, I'd move the themes section to before the reception section and bundle release in with production. (I also like production before the plot section, but I think I'm in the minority there.)
  • I've had a look at the suggested layout at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film and moved the themes to before the production. That also suggests keeping release and reception separate from the production, which is what I've seen in other film GA and FAs. (I guess "the making of" is separate from "the selling of" in these terms) - The Bounder (talk) 07:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• Perhaps you could note the eventual winner of the BAFTA and the Oscar? Also, those nominations definitely belong in the lead!
  • Both of these are now done. - The Bounder (talk) 09:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• "recover the spirit, the resilience and local autonomy and unity, of wartime London" Is that quote accurate? The sentence structure is a little atypical!
  • Yes! Barr looks like he is old-school intelligentsia, with an occasionally original approach to sentence structure. He's absolutely superb, but it's not the easiest read I've ever experienced. - The Bounder (talk) 07:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• "the welcome return to the ration books at the end of the film" Again, it'd be great if this could be added to the plot section.
  • Added to the last line
• Is Pemberton the main character? I assume so; this could be made a little clearer. Perhaps a mention in the lead?
  • I've sort of relied on convention with the name listed first in a few places, although we already point out in the lead that Holloway was "starring", rahter than just appearing. I've added 'lead' to the casting section to make sure it's clear. - The Bounder (talk) 09:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• On the same topic, I'd definitely like to see a mention of the radio adaptations in the lead.
  • Yes, not added - The Bounder (talk) 09:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• Could I recommend {{reflist|30em}} rather than {{reflist}}, given your short footnotes?
  • OK, now added - The Bounder (talk) 07:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• Category:Films set in London may be a good addition.
  • Already there, I think, but I've added Category:Films shot in London instead, which wasn't there. - The Bounder (talk) 07:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• I'm seeing quite a lot of hits on Google Scholar; it looks like this film has received a good bit of academic attention. Some of these may have something to offer to the article; for example, Tony Williams's "The Repressed Fantastic in Passport to Pimlico" (apparently published in a few places) and Chantal Cornut-Gentille D'Arcy's "Classic Comedy as a Barometer for Present Times or the Debunking of Categorical Delineations of Nationality in "Passport to Pimlico" (Henry Cornelius, 1949)" might be worth putting in a further reading section, if nothing else.
  • I've added it as a sub-section to the sources: is that the right place for it? - The Bounder (talk) 09:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• Sources are all appropriate, images look fine.
• I've done some copyediting; please do check that you're happy with my edits.
  • Very happy, thanks. - The Bounder (talk) 09:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

If you're interested in aiming towards featured article status, I'd be happy to offer some suggestions, but I think that might require some (more!) work sifting through libraries and archives. However, that's certainly not necessary: I really enjoyed this article, and don't think it is at all far from being ready to promote to GA status. Is this your first nomination at GAC? If so, it's very polished! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your edits and your comments, which I hope I have dealt with fully. I'm not sure about FA - that seems a fairly big mountain to climb, but maybe in a couple of months when I feel a bit more comfortable with what I'm doing, I'll start doing some more research on it. Thanks again for your work on this! - The Bounder (talk) 09:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Great, I'm happy that these fixes deal with the issues I raised, and another glance through the article suggests that this is definitely worth promoting to GA status. A pleasure to (briefly) work with you; feel free to message me if you have any other articles going through GAC, FAC or PR if you're looking for a reviewer (but no promises). Josh Milburn (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
    • That's fantastic news! Thank you so much - The Bounder (talk) 07:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Use of unreliable commercial site

286blue, stop edit warring for crying out loud. You are removing both media and a BFI reference from the page and trying to replace it with an unreliable commercial site with no expertise in the area. You have been through a large number of UK film pages and made similar changes, all based on the same site. You don't know anything about the site, so you cannot claim they trump the BFI information. Your knee-jerk reversion also took out other constructive changes, so please do not blindly revert on such limited rationale again.

There is also an additional problem that the page you are linking to contains copyright infringing material. Under the WP:LINKVIO policy, we cannot link to sites that infringe copyright. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 08:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Ottawa was never Dutch

This article twice makes the inaccurate assertion that a part of Ottawa was made Dutch. The actual circumstances of her birth are explained in the Wikipedia entry for Princess Margriet. 84.65.117.228 (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)