Talk:Saving Mr. Banks/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 22:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll review. Expect comments within a week or two. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The review should be up before the weekend is over. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for getting sidetracked and not posting sooner, though it will for sure be up this week. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Lead

• "Saving Mr. Banks was released theatrically in the UK on November 29, 2013, and in the United States on December 13, 2013, receiving positive reviews, with praise directed towards the acting, screenplay, and musical score" is quite a mouthful, so try splitting this into two sentences.
• There should be a time range for when filming took place

Plot

• "courted" in "Disney has courted Travers for 20 years" is a misleading term; I'd use pursued
• "B.J. Novak" → B. J. Novak

Cast

• I wonder if this is needed when all the major cast members are mentioned in the plot; seems redundant to have both a cast listing section and cast members mentioned in plot at the same time

Production

Development

• "who died just before" → "who died shortly before"

Historical accuracy

• This should probably be its own section rather than a "Production" subsection
• Is "dramatic" in "The dramatic premise of the script" really necessary?
• The last paragraph should be expanded or merged per MOS:PARAGRAPHS, which discourages really short paragraphs as well as really short sections/subsections

Music

• This needs an expansion; when did Newman begin working on and complete the soundtrack? It could also help to include quotes from critics.

Release

Home media

• This is too short for its own subsection per MOS:PARAGRAPHS, so remove the subheading here

Reception

Box office

• This is rather short per MOS:PARAGRAPHS, and should probably be included within "release".

Critical response

• There needs to be a publication for each critic (e.g. Mark Kermode is writing for The Observer, Michael Phillips for Chicago Tribune, and Peter Travers for Rolling Stone)
• "felt similarly" reads awkwardly
• "The" is not part of the title for Los Angeles Times

Accolades

• The entire first paragraph is missing citations
• "The film also received single nominations at the 71st Golden Globe Awards and 20th Screen Actors Guild Awards, where Thompson was nominated for Best Actress in a Motion Picture – Drama and Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role, respectively. Additionally, Thompson won the National Board of Review Award for Best Actress for her performance, while the film itself was selected by the National Board of Review as one of the year's top 10 films." is unsourced
• I know there's already a separate article giving a detailed listing of awards and nominations, though it's probably worth mentioning that Thompson won best actress at the Empire Awards

References

• Dead links need to be fixed
• I'm not sure if "Jim Hill Media", "Hypable", "Screensave.com", "Access Hollywood", "paperblog.com", "historyextra.com", "screenrant.com", "mouseplanet.com", "Big Cartoon News", "ComingSoon.net", "collider.com", "if.com.au", "Film School Rejects", "Awards Daily", "IndieWire", or "Latinos Post" are good sources to use
• Evening Standard, Daily Mail, The Huffington Post, Daily Express, and Toronto Sun are not reliable
• BBC, Deadline.com, The Walt Disney Company, Rotten Tomatoes, and Metacritic shouldn't be italicized
• "The" is not part of the title for Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, or Orange County Register
• "chicagotribune.com" should read Chicago Tribune in italics
• "SlashFilm" should read "/Film"
• "www.guardian.co.uk" should read The Guardian in italics
• "Deadline" and "Deadline Hollywood" should read Deadline.com and not have italics
• This ref (Staten Island Advance) is missing its work parameter
• "Vulture" should read New York

Overall

• Well-written?

• Prose quality: Decent, but needs improvements
• Manual of Style compliance: Some issues

• Verifiable?

• Reference layout: Could be better
• Reliable sources: Needs work
• No original research: Not exactly

• Broad in coverage?

• Major aspects: Mostly good
• Focused: No excess detail

• Neutral?: No bias detected

• Stable?: Nothing of concern

• Illustrated, if possible, by images

• Appropriate licensing: No copyright issues
• Relevance and captioning: Looks good

• Pass or Fail?: Placing this on hold for seven days. I'm mainly concerned with referencing at the moment.

I'll take your suggestions under careful consideration and address them in the article as soon as possible. Thank you. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 16:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

My pleasure reviewing this. Just remember that the deadline is August 28th. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I've taken your comments under consideration and adjusted the whole article accordingly, to the best of my abilities. A small sidenote: Initially, I wasn't sure whether to separate the "Historical accuracy" subsection into its own section as you suggested, because there was already an earlier contentious consensus regarding its placement, but nevertheless I decided to go ahead with your suggestion. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 01:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Good work so far, Jedi94. Looking through again, please italicize The Daily Telegraph, and add refs in the cast list for Tom Hanks and Annie Rose Buckley. I didn't see anything in the references used saying Ellie was the sister of PL's mother (this doesn't even mention the names "Ellie" or "Tommie Wilck"), and I'm not sure it's necessary detail to begin with. While I haven't looked through all refs, please also make sure everything supports attributed text. This soundtrack review from AllMusic is also worth including. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I've combed through the article once again, making a few more alterations here and there. Do you think it's necessary to have references in the cast section? They seem redundant to include there since it's obvious from the context of the article and the film itself that those cast members are in the film. Also, a majority of the actors are already sourced later in the article. Perhaps, I can write the casting of the other actors (and their refs) into the prose of the production section, and remove the sources altogether from the cast section? ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 01:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing in WP:FILMCAST that exempts cast lists from citations. You could however find one ref containing all cast members wit and roles, and say "credits adapted from ______". See Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge for a good example. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, I think I'll just leave it as is. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 02:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Not what I would recommend, though added a ref myself supporting all cast. Passing this now since there are no other issues. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Fantastic! Thank you for your time and guidance. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 23:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)