A fact from What Maisie Knew (film) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 20 June 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that the filming of What Maisie Knew was complicated by its six-year-old star's early bedtime?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
I saw this film some time back, and found it quite harrowing and moving, particularly since I have kids and went through an unpleasant marital breakdown myself, so I'll be happy to give this a review. I read the article not long after watching the film and couldn't see anything obviously wrong with it, this can have the full review.
For "development", you could link to development hell, which is a common term for when a script languishes for a long time before being picked up for production.
"The film premiered at the 2012 Toronto International Film Festival on September 7, 2012" - I don't think the date needs to be in the lead, just the "2012 ... Festival" is enough.
I recall a scene where a locksmith comes and changes the lock on the front door of the flat so Maisie's father can't get in, and she doesn't understand what's happening. Could that be mentioned in this section somewhere?
I've added a sentence to the first paragraph; please adjust it if you can think of a way to word it better. 97198 (talk) 11:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
Lincoln is described as "a bartender whom she does not particularly like" - I don't recall any evidence of that from the film, while she seems to treat him as a doormat and their relationship quickly sours, she must have liked him enough to want to date him, regardless of how flimsy a pretext it was
I've changed this to "a bartender whom she barely knows" for want of a better phrase to summarise their relationship. Do you have any other suggestions? 97198 (talk) 11:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
"they liked that the script focused on Maisie's perspective ..." - the source given also mentions that focusing a film for adults around the perspective of a child was (and, indeed, is) unusual; that would be worth dropping in here.
"A scene in which Susanna performs at a concert was filmed at Webster Hall ...." - the source given does not appear to support the claims given in this sentence
"The film was released in the United States on May 3, 2013." - this does not appear to be in the source given
Added another ref. 97198 (talk) 11:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
This source says the British release was helped by £150,000 of marketing funding pledged by the British Film Institute - worth adding to the article?
I've added this along with the total UK marketing cost. 97198 (talk) 11:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
I'm struggling to find the UK sales figures in the above source, though I know trying to search through PDFs can be problematic. Do you know which page they're on?
The £330,186 figure is on page 3 and £65,832 on page 9, while the release date is on page 2. I have added page numbers to the reference to make things easier. 97198 (talk) 11:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
" It earned a total of $1,644,908 outside of the U.S." - the source says $1,066,071 (or am I looking in the wrong place?)
Box Office Mojo gives $1,066,071 as the "Domestic Total Gross" (i.e. in the U.S.). They provide a list of earnings by country outside of the U.S. but don't give an explicit total, so I added the individual countries together to get $1,644,908. 97198 (talk) 11:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
There are just minor things needed to bring the article up to GA status, so I'm happy to put the review on hold now pending the above issues. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 08:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the review, Ritchie. I thought about dropping you a note when I nominated the article at GAN since you'd previously encouraged me to do it, but I saw you were inactive. Glad to see you're back (and I love the Monopoly project you're working on)! I might not have time today but I'll let you know as I work through your comments. 97198 (talk) 12:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Ritchie333: Okay, I have tried to address all of your comments. Thanks for the suggestions! 97198 (talk) 11:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
That all looks fine to me, so I've passed the review. Well done. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 12:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
