Talk:The Hurt Locker/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Binksternet (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

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:

Initial thoughts

Pretty good assembly of multiple contributions by a wide range of editors, but the writing style is consequently choppy—barely acceptable for GA but certainly not FA. Images are clear but I think the three actors' names should be wikilinked below their faces. The film's poster image is not free for use on the associated 'Accolades' page—it needs a rationale for that article. Back here, there are some low-value references (Anne Thompson blogging for Variety? Buckminster Schumacker III at Screen Junkies??), four dead links, and a fact tag that must be addressed. I was surprised to find nothing about Sergeant Sarver who sued Boal—I expect this article to tell me, briefly, about the grounds for that accusation, notable responses to it, and its current status. The article history shows some back-and-forth over the Sarver bit and over other content, so it brings up the yellow caution flag in my mind, but not the red flag of edit warring quick-fail. I will conduct a more thorough review of the article when I get a chance, certainly by the end of April 5. It is quite alright in the interim for interested editors to attend to the references and content issues I have pointed out. Binksternet (talk) 15:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There had been earlier discussion on this page about the Sarver controversy, and editors decided to put it with the article on Boal, as it most directly concerned him. Perhaps it needs to be in both places.--Parkwells (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the two versions can show slightly different facets, with Boal's page describing personal reactions, and this page describing how people thought it might affect the film. Binksternet (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I promised April 5, but life got in the way. Now I promise 'ASAP'. Binksternet (talk) 03:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Review rev.2

Peppage revived the dead links, so that issue is fixed—thanks! Same with the needed citation. :-)

Odd comment: when did we start putting non-breaking spaces between the month and day of a month-day-year date format? Funny to see that.

• The lead paragraph is the choppy one—the sentences are too short—it should be rewritten for better flow.
• Why is the year 2009 trumpeted in the first sentence? The perceived year of the film is not so firm as that. It was tail-end 2008, but judged to be 2009 by the Academy.
• Chartier was not banned from attending the Oscars, he was barred, or asked not to appear.
• The Chartier barred reference goes to an article with a different title, one that precedes his being barred.
• One Variety reference, for box office figures, gives only the main www.variety.com URL. Not useful.
• The gross of the film, in the infobox, is $36,881,971. In the article, we are told "the film grossed $26,500,000 against its $15 million production budget." Not only do these figures fail to mesh, the way that the $26.5M figure is presented makes it look like net, not gross.
• Curly quotes need to be straightened.
• Some overlinking is present. NYC and L.A. do not need more than a single instance of wikilinking, if any, and countries such as Italy need none.
• Create a Sarver paragraph which describes how the film was or was not affected, or was expected to be affected.

Okay, there is revision 2.0 of my review. Feel free to fix indicated problems. I expect I will circle back and check more deeply into references. Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Sarver paragraph

I don't think it's something that should be included. The multiple news stories all say the same thing and there isn't anything that has been done about it. This happens to almost all films that make money and isn't very notable. I think it's only getting coverage because the film won an oscar. It hasn't affected the film, in fact the lawyer said he waited for the voting to be over before raising the lawsuit.

Sarver claims that it's a very real account of his time in Iraq but there are many other veterans coming forward that say the film is ridiculous. Furthermore Sarver claims to have invented "Hurt Locker" but it's military slang from 1966. So as it stands right now this hasn't done anything to the film and probably won't in the future. It's just another frivolous lawsuit. --Peppage^tlk 13:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I can see your point. Here it is one month later, and TheWrap reports that the filmmakers have yet to be served papers; the supposed lawsuit is apparently a fizzle. Even a fizzle can be notable enough for inclusion, however, given sufficient mainstream coverage, and the film producers are reportedly braced for battle if it occurs. I can imagine a future version of this article, supported by some notional future reference, that says something like "Sgt Sarver announced a lawsuit a few days before the Oscars, complaining that the film's story was taken from him, but [one of the filmmakers] said Sarver's lawyers dropped the case [some amount of time later] without filing." Binksternet (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

So something small then? I don't think enough information exists to write a new subsection. Suggestions where it should go? --Peppage^tlk 15:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

A sentence in the "Response among veterans" section might suit. It might work well if the small paragraph about the meaning of the phrase "hurt locker" is used to counter Sarver's claim to have originated the phrase; if that Ben Zimmer reference is cited to show Sarver immediately wrong in one of his claims. The "hurt locker" explanation paragraph would, in this solution, be moved from the beginning of the "Plot" section to somewhere in the "Response" section. Oh, and the non-notable person Buckminster Schumacker III's phrase "place of ultimate pain" should be excised completely. That ScreenJunkies reference is very low on the reliable scale—too low for an encyclopedia.

At any rate, I am not going to let Sarver hinder this GA review if we can establish that current editor consensus, as of April 2010, is that Sarver need not be mentioned at all. Binksternet (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently I lied and wrote an entire paragraph anyway. I also removed that the Schumacker phrase. --Peppage^tlk 16:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh heh... it is near impossible to bring up and dismiss an event without going into a bit of detail. I like what you've done. Binksternet (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

<==Okay, the issues have been addressed, and the article is at GA-Class. Congratulations to all who've worked on it! Binksternet (talk) 02:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)