Talk:Scarface (1932 film)
Latest comment: 4 years ago by 2A02:AA1:101B:F002:89AB:6FD8:1109:1E62 in topic Take your pick
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | Scarface (1932 film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 21, 2018. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that after the original 1932 release of the film Scarface, it was removed from circulation and remained officially unavailable for nearly 50 years? | ||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | |||||||||||||
 | Scarface (1932 film) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
| This  level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
 | The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
Lede
editThe lede should be a summary of the entirety of the article. For instance, it should contain a basic summary of the plot. I'd recommend something more in the vicinity of three sentences than one. Missed the FA nom, but happy to read through if you're looking for reviewers in the future. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 01:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Czar: Can't agree there, I'm afraid. IMO a single-sentence summary of the premise of the film is all that's required. Popcornduff (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- Required, maybe, but it doesn't give the reader much to work with. Per WP:FILMLEDE, I'd at least expect some context on the co-stars' role in the premise, and context on why the depiction of the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre is important. There's plenty else to paraphrase in the lede for an article of this size, though. czar 02:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Czar:, I tried expanding the lead as you suggested. I would certainly love a review if you are interested. I still want to promote this to FA. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- Required, maybe, but it doesn't give the reader much to work with. Per WP:FILMLEDE, I'd at least expect some context on the co-stars' role in the premise, and context on why the depiction of the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre is important. There's plenty else to paraphrase in the lede for an article of this size, though. czar 02:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Skyes(BYU), [1] Thinking out loud about what a general audience needs to know in the first paragraph—is it important to list all six headlining actors in the lede? I haven't edited enough film articles to know if there's a party line, but I think it's overkill to introduce the character names and actors of roles that won't be repeated in the rest of the lede. E.g., he pursues his boss's mistress and his sister pursues his best hitman—is any more detail needed than that?
- Also the lede goes into great detail on the censors, but makes no mention of production. The lede should be written to summarize the entirety of the article. Think of giving each sentence in the lede proportional weight to the length of the article. (Also, in general, feel free to revert any of my edits here. I'm just trying to find what is easiest for a general audience to read.) czar 02:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Review
edit- I'd first challenge you to reduce the number of headings. Is it possible to group the content in fewer headings that still effectively group the article's contents? For reference, you can compare against other film articles FAs here.
- For example, is the content of "Related films" and "Italian language versions" not primarily a component of the film's "Legacy"? As a reader, I'd want to hear about the 1932 film's influence on Pacino in context of the 1983's production
- Next steps could also include checking the refs to make sure they're the best possible source (at least one of the links was dead when I checked). Ideally, there would be definitive, secondary sources whenever possible. On same note, it's not necessary to source the plot, since if it's just descriptive, it's assumed to be verifiable in the film. However, it's nice to provide secondary sourcing such that a reader can look up details without watching the full film, or also to include analysis that you wouldn't be able to write through simple description. Not necessary, but if available, I recommend using secondary sourcing for the synopsis. czar 03:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Take your pick
edit"Filming lasted six months, which was long for films made in the early 1930s." "Filming took three months..." "Despite that, Scarface was filmed and put together quickly." 2A02:AA1:101B:F002:89AB:6FD8:1109:1E62 (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)