Talk:Birdman (film)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 01:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• @MusicAngels: have all of the previous concerns been addressed? Please answer as best as you can. Viriditas (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the article is ready for GA assessment. This article was previously a GA article which was delisted during the summer because of WP:OR issues with the Plot section. I was in complete agreement with the delisting editor and felt that the Plot section needed to be substantially rewritten. The current Plot section offers a rewrite of each one of the five paragraphs in the Plot section (all of them), which was needed to restore the intentionally ambiguous parts of the Plot as intended by the director. In addition, while reworking the Plot section, two additional new Sections were added which appeared to be missing in the previous version of the article; an Analysis and themes section was added, as well as a new Soundtrack section which are both added here. The current version of the article has been expanded in these ways to address the previous concerns. MusicAngels (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Why is this being referenced at all, especially for a huge quote block? Surely there are much more authoritative critics to be referencing instead. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Erik II: The review you refer to received a very positive response from the interwiki GA review of this same article at the Serbian version of this article. You can find it in its translated version by going to the article page here, and then linking on the Serbian interwiki link in the left column of the screen. The translation of that review was quoted in full at the end of that article, which I thought was much too long, so I adbridged it by cutting it in half and included it as a useful block quote here in the Critical reception section. It is a direct reinforcement of the Barabara S. review from Germany which is also included in that section next to it. MusicAngels (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• I have a few issues and comments regarding this article, which I'll admit is excellent. First of all, the genre is classified as a "satirical drama"; however, "satirical" links to "black comedy", so I don't understand the change from the latter to the former. Also, on the first paragraph, it says the film "comments on the present state of the film industry." Not only is this misplaced in a part about crew, it is also arguable as to whether the unifying theme of the film is its industry or Art and criticism in general. Finally, the last line of the last paragraph states that the film press compared the film to those of Godard, Hitchcock, Fellini and Sokurov. However, I didn't see many comparisons to Godard if not negative ones by Richard Brody, and Hitchcock and Sokurov are not thematic but technical comparisons (Rope and Russian Ark), and citing those two references makes it a stretch to say that 'the press' made those comparisons. It's okay to feature those in the Critical response section, but not in the lede, which should state a critical consensus among the majority of critics. I'm not there. Message me! 13:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

There are two parts to this issue and comment from Katastai's (User:I'm not there) careful reading of Brody. First, the "satirical drama film" part. This issue has come up with many critics of the film and is worth discussing since after the Oscars the preference among commentators has been to recognize that "Satire" is the inclusive category in literary theory and in film theory, while "Black comedy" is a special type designiation within Satire, not the other way around. Therefor, "satirical drama film" was chosen as the main description, following the reviews by Barbara S. and Matthew P. in the Reception section, with "Black comedy" placed on the link from "Satire" as designating the appropriate subclass of literary sub-genre. (Answer to second part under "Äddendum" immediately below this entry.) MusicAngels (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Cheers, Katastasi. Message me! 17:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: Brody's review of Birdman is overall negative, since he mostly says the film is unoriginal and familiar, compares it unfavorably to Godard's films and the review's title states that it "never achieves flight". One could argue it's a mixed review, but certainly not a positive one. I'm not there. Message me! 14:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This review by Brody was of interest to many readers because of the very high level comparisons it employed to make its point. The comparisons which Brody makes in order to make his point are really the gold standard of film theory as it is understood today. For example, if you have to criticize a new drama or tragedy in the 21st century by stating that its not as good as Shakespeare's Hamlet or Othello, then so much the better for the new 21st century author for being compared on such lofty ground. Brody comparing Birdman to the best of Godard is standing on the high ground of criticism. I am on the fence in terms of placing the Fellini criticism paragraph before the Brody criticism paragraph in the Reception section, but when Brody compares Birdman to the best of Godard, then he is conceding a great deal of ground to Birdman as an exceptional film. MusicAngels (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think the comparisons are a great resource employed by Brody, but the review is still very critical in tone, and he states it himself that "it's not good for anyone to get in the ring with Mr. Godard" but by comparing Iñárritu's film with Godard's films, he could have been presenting some form of praise for Birdman, I guess. Nevertheless, I found the review to be quite negative, and I think his review would be summed up more accurately as overall mixed. Even the Rotten Tomatoes page classifies it as "rotten". See here: [1]. Well, thanks for the explanation anyway! Cheers, Katastasi. Message me! 17:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• "The film opens with a quotation from Raymond Carver stating that the main fulfillment in life is related to having once been loved, then cuts to a dramatic atmospheric disturbance resembling a meteor descending in flames." I think this will better fit in "Themes" rather than the plot. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Thanks for the "telekenesis" link. The issue of the Prologue to the film being included in the Plot section is because the director has told us that it is integral to the Plot. Since the Prologue is part of the film itself, it belongs to the Plot section rather than another section discussing the meaning or themes about the film. The Raymond Carver theme is integral to the Plot of the film as well and is revisited at least 27 times in the film by direct references to the Carver play being staged throughout the film from start to finish. MusicAngels (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Lead

Resolved

• satirical drama (adapting lead section to reflect "dark satirical drama film" per resolved above earlier today and two cited examples given here below yesterday.) MusicAngels (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced by the above arguments regarding this genre classification. Please present explicit, notable and reliable film critics who have described this genre in English. Viriditas (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
    • In addition to the reviews by Barbara S. and Matthew P., the Birdman as Satire has received extensive press coverage. I am hatting the top ten sources with their links here for ready reference: MusicAngels (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Well, that pretty much illustrates the problem at hand. What you consider "top ten sources" is at odds with WP:RS and what they actually say. Please start by deleting sources such as "geeksaresexy.net" which talks about the satire of Sesame Street, not this film, and is not even a RS. Viriditas (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Birdman as Satire film
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is Birdman serious or a satire? - Quora[2] Birdman is indeed a satire on the show industry, as well as satirizing the actors. For example, Edward Norton is known for being brash and “Birdman”: Michael Keaton heads an all-star cast in a crackling ...[3] Oct 16, 2014 ... In some ways “Birdman” seems like a major departure for Iñárritu, the ... It's an overtly comic film, an exaggerated backstage satire made 'Birdman' is the First Modern Showbiz Satire - Indiewire[4] Aug 31, 2014 ... Michael Keaton nabs the role of a lifetime in Alejandro Gonzalez Iñarritu's wonderfully strange look at an aging actor fighting to stay relevant. Birdman Review - CINEMABLEND[5] No one is exempt from this smart and hilarious satire, not artists, fans, or critics. Birdman plants us in the St. James theater where Riggan's show will play, and 'Birdman' review: Inarritu's fine showbiz satire of ex-superhero[6] Oct 23, 2014 ... Any conversation about “Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)” must begin with a description of how it was filmed. It was shot in Film review: Birdman - Michael Keaton soars in showbiz satire[7]Jan 22, 2015 ... BIRDMAN Starring: Michael Keaton, Edward Norton, Emma Stone, Naomi Watts Director: Alejandro González Iñárritu Category: IIB. Let us first The Hollywood Satire That Secretly Loves Hollywood - Esquire[8] Oct 9, 2014 ... R. Kelly's name is used as an insult partway through Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance), which is ironic, given that Alejandro Dark, satirical 'Birdman' soars - | The Michigan Daily[9] Nov 2, 2014 ... The camera in Alejandro González Iñárritu's “Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Innocence)” never stops moving, even to pause on the Sesame Street Does Brilliant 'Birdman' SatireGeeks are Sexy[10] Feb 21, 2015 ... Sesame Street has really upped their game over the last few years. Adding pure satire and parody that is clearly aimed at parents more than Actors endorse showbiz satire 'Birdman' in march toward Oscars[11]

There's lots of problems with the use and interpretation of sources in the above. Try to look at the most reliable, in-depth film sources on the subject. There's a lot, but few of those above qualify. Here's a few: Viriditas (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Birdman as comedy drama, satire, black comedy, and fantasy
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Alter, Ethan (October 13, 2014). Film Review: Birdman (or the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)". Film Journal International. Corliss, Richard (August 27, 2014). "Birdman at Venice: Can an Ex-Superhero Still Fly? Time. "...Alejandro G. Iñárritu’s new comedy-fantasy...inside-showbiz satire..." Fear, David (November/December 2014). "A Wing and a Prayer". Film Comment. "Birdman...is many things: a backstage farce, a satire of media ubiquity, a portrait of career resurrection that’s enabled its star and director to effect their own professional resuscitations, a drama about squandered potential." McGrath, Declan (Summer 2015). "Birdman." Cineaste. 40 (3): 67-69. "Iñárritu’s arch black comedy, winner of the Academy Award for 2014’s Best Picture of the Year, satirizes both the commercial world of Hollywood movies (which Thomson has forsaken) and the supposedly purer and more artistic world of the theater (where he now hopes to gain renewed recognition)...Despite all its satirical jabs at the expense of actors, Birdman is ultimately a celebration of their craft...At film’s end, Thomson is praised by the theater critic for creating a new form—“super-realism,” where reality and drama intersect. Is this also what Iñárritu is doing? Perhaps, but at that stage Birdman has made so many comments about our modern culture that the audience would be forgiven for wondering if the film is actually thereby saying anything truly critical or if it is finally as fatuous and superficial as the culture it criticizes." Smith, Paul Julian (January 2015). "Flight of Fancy". Sight & Sound. 25 (1): 28-31.

• • That's a persuasive list of reviews. I can see that they could be read as suggesting the description of "dark satire drama film" as an amplification on the current "satirical drama film". If you have strong feelings the one way or the other, then this might be a good time to indicate which one might be the more useful for readers of the article. MusicAngels (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I have no strong views or feelings on this topic. I'm merely showing that based on the above discussion and the page history, there is a disagreement about the genre in the lead (and the article). That disagreement should be represented in the review. Viriditas (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
      • On this issue, there appear to be two different viewpoints. The writers of the film have, after the release of the film, indicated directly that the film is not a comedy and should not be evaluated as a comedy, in spite of the fact that they did include some scenes for comic relief. The difficulty was that prior to the production of the film, the director did indicate (before production even began) that he was considering making a comedy for his next film. Those very early, pre-production plans were dropped and the plot was subsequently re-adapted to cover the final emotional tail spin of a troubled has-been actor. However, many of the early reviews written by those who knew of the director's pre-production plans still refered to the film as a comedy. This trend appeared to go away after the Academy Award wins, but the early misnomers from many 2014 reviews are still out there as part of the old historical record. The majority weight now after the Academy Award wins is that the film is a Satiric drama film, which could be amplified to dark satiric drama film, if you feel it will help readers of the Wikipedia article. MusicAngels (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
        • Three things: 1) What I "feel" is irrelevant. There is clearly an independent dispute about the genres given the talk page and article history that has nothing to do with me as the reviewer. I have no clue if it has been resolved or not, and your reply helps inform the discussion, but does not conclude it. 2) You've made it clear up above that the people behind the film do not consider it a comedy. However, do they consider it a satirical drama? Finally, 3) which of the films in Category:American satirical films is this film similar to in scope? If there is an easy answer showing that at least two members of this category are properly placed, then I will feel more comfortable about its placement. Viriditas (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
          • The two films from your list of satire films are Natural Born Killers, (a dark satire dealing with homicidal criminals), and Network, (a dark satire dealing with rivalry and competition in the broadcast industry). The association of the film as a comedy of any stripe is disowned by the writers and was a misnomer applied by a number of critics prior to the Academy Awards for the film. The choice still appears to be down to "satiric drama film" or "dark satiric drama film". MusicAngels (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• comments on the present state of the film industry
  • We are writing encyclopedia articles for future readers, so the use of "present state" isn't helpful. Viriditas (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Done. Shorten wording. "Contemporary" film industry covers it. MusicAngels (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
• and appears as if filmed in a single shot
  • Link to long take in single shot. Viriditas (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Done. I think you did this last night. MusicAngels (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
• Such a technique required an atypical production approach, with many elements of post-production requiring consideration before principal photography
  • Yeah, we know, it's 2015 now, and it's been done before. Shorten this and merge it with the single shot to note the editing in post. There's no need for the lengthy explanation in the lead as it's been explained many times before. Viriditas (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Done. Sentence shortened. MusicAngels (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
      • It's still a bit long. It's 2015 and the single shot technique is old hat. It's generally well-known that it requires an "atypical production approach with many elements of post-production requiring consideration before principal photography", so I really don't think this belongs in the lead. On the other hand, you should say something unique about the single shot sequence used in this film, perhaps a technical point that is only true for this film. It's the difference between knowing when to write in the general or in the particular. For example, you could say that Lubezki believed that the recording time necessary for the long take could not have been made with older technology. Something like that. Viriditas (talk) 02:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
        • Done. Adapting your version and adding emphasis on his win of the Academy Award for cinematography. MusicAngels (talk) 15:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• The film has been favorably compared in the press to films by Godard, Fellini, Hitchcock and Sokurov.
  • No need for refs in the lead here and you've got duplicate citations here: source 4 and 92 are the same. Viriditas (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Done. Remove redundant cites in lead section already mentioned in the main body of the article. MusicAngels (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
• Does the lead summarize the main points of the article? I'm not seeing anything about the distinctive soundtrack elements. Viriditas (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. I have added a short comment to summarize the new Soundtrack section and the Disqualification section in the article previous not mentioned in the lead section. MusicAngels (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for trying, but there are several issues with your addition. First, you did not refer to the musician by their full name in the first instance. Second, the only thing important here is to briefly note two things, not represent the entire music and soundtrack sections. Those two, brief points are: 1) jazz drummer Antonio Sánchez composed the score, and 2) the Academy disqualified the score because of reason X. That's it. Viriditas (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Done. His full name has to appear and I am linking it as well. Removing the long quote as well since it is already in the article itself. MusicAngels (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
        • Thanks, but you've still got way to much information about this point in the lead. Again, we are summarizing the main points which amounts to 1) jazz drummer Antonio Sánchez composed the score, and 2) the Academy disqualified Sánchez from the Academy Award for Best Original Score, because of the large number of classical music segments which were used in the film. That's it. There is no need to mention the date, the full name of the Academy, the name of their longlist, nor a long explanation. Viriditas (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
          • Done. Cut by half, and reduce two sentence version down to one sentence version in lead section. MusicAngels (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• The story follows Riggan Thomson (Keaton), a faded Hollywood actor famous for his role as superhero "Birdman"...
  • His role as superhero "Birdman" or his role as the superhero "Birdman"? Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Done. "The superhero" looks better. MusicAngels (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• I've placed a "resolved" tag at the top for the lead section. It's still too wordy for my tastes, but you've gone above and beyond to address my concerns. Nice work. Viriditas (talk) 05:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I have noticed that someone has yesterday reverted your "resolved" without Talk page discussion. MusicAngels (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Plot

Resolved

 – See recommendation about viral video link

• Plot length is 740 words. It should be between 400 and 700. I think it can be trimmed further, particularly in the first and last paragraph. Viriditas (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. Further shorten Plot section. Enhance narrative flow. MusicAngels (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
• amateur videos of the incident go viral...Riggan bumps into Sam and she shows him a video of him walking through Times Square in his underwear
  • You've linked to viral video in the first instance, but wouldn't it work better in the second as "she shows him the viral video", since you already established its existence? Viriditas (talk) 10:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Done. Adding your recommendation as a link to "viral video". MusicAngels (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Cast

Resolved

• Any particular reason the themes comes before the cast section? Surely the reader would want to know who is in the film before reading about the themes? Viriditas (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. Plot-Cast-Analysis order makes sense. MusicAngels (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• @MusicAngels: even though I have marked this resolved, please take a look at Erik's suggestions for white space and image usage.[12] Viriditas (talk) 06:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. Include image of Emma Stone for white space. Please note that page protect is expiring in 5 days and its a holiday weekend coming up. Might be nice to make to most use of the page protect until Friday and no problem if you would like to double up on the overnight "to do" edits. MusicAngels (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, my revert of the image & caption was because it emphasizes a supporting actor and the reception to their performance (WP:UNDUE). Meanwhile, I'd added div col to decrease white space. Lapadite (talk) 02:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Viriditas; I'll leave this one up to you if you prefer the two column list, or, the graphic of Emma Stone concerning Lapadite. This week-end is a long holiday week-end for Columbus day and everyone is likely to be away until later next week. You may want to check with Neuroxic about any edits you might want if needed and if he is done with his exams, etc. Otherwise, this is the last over-night assignments which you might want to assign for me to do before the page protect here expires this week-end. MusicAngels (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Production

• The prose in this section needs a lot of work. I'll have more to say, but there are problems. Viriditas (talk) 03:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • See comment below in your Concept comment. MusicAngels (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Development

• Except for some of the first paragraph, this section reads backwards. Why would you wait until the end of the section to discuss the basic points? Structurally, this is reversed. Introduce the reader to the basic points first, then explore the more technical issues. You've got this the other way around. Viriditas (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. Reorganize paragraphs in section and rewrite to cover general issues before technical decisions and difficulties. Previous version reversed these. MusicAngels (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
• Iñárritu's own experiences influenced many of Birdman's themes, and said "What this film talks about, I have been through. I have seen and experienced all of it; it's what I have been living through the last years of my life."

• Please fix this sentence or split it up. I prefer something like

• Iñárritu's own experiences influenced many of Birdman's themes. "What this film talks about, I have been through," Iñárritu recalled. "I have seen and experienced all of it; it's what I have been living through the last years of my life."

• There are many different ways to clean it up. Viriditas (talk) 10:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Done. That works well. I think that the director's quote here is useful to readers. MusicAngels (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• @MusicAngels: "Conception and writing" is usually called "Development" in film articles. Viriditas (talk) 05:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. Going with one word version. MusicAngels (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• @MusicAngels: please fix this: "Because of this it was important to the director that Carver's story be the subject of the play, so found using his work "terrifying" in case the rights to it were rejected, but no issues arose." Sorry, but that doesn't make sense. Viriditas (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Done. Rewrite of sentence was the easiest way to get this right, since the Carver use rights were amicably resolved. MusicAngels (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• @MusicAngels: please try again. You might try splitting it into two separate sentences. Viriditas (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Done. Divide into two sentences. If this is still difficult for readers, then consider simply ellision of these two sentences as optional. No difficulty for you to just delete the two sentences if you still are finding them unreadble. MusicAngels (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• @MusicAngels: Any particular reason this is left unsourced? "The film's ending also changed, the final version being written halfway through filming." Viriditas (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Done. At least I think its done. Each one of the 4 footnotes in the paragraph (#9-10-11-12) has this information. I imagine you could add another reference after the first sentence, though the paragraph itself has 4 references which support the first sentence fully. If you want to add another footnote (#9-10-11-12) after the first sentence that's fine too. MusicAngels (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• @MusicAngels: it is important that all of the content is supported by the cited sources. If I look again and find that it is not, I may have to fail this review. So, go back and make sure the sources cited support the content. Viriditas (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Done. @Viriditas: I am going with footnote #10 which gives the following quotation:

  What was the writing process like for the final scene? Did it have a different ending? "No, it had a different ending but in the middle of shooting, I knew it was a piece of shit. I felt it and the film began to breathe by itself, and the characters began to grow. I went in and wrote it with Alexander [Dinelaris] and Nico [Giacobone], and I am so happy that I changed it. Now I feel very good about the ending. It feels very fair."

  That is the quote I am going with. (P.s. It is now re-sequenced as the first footnote in that paragraph and the old #10 footnote is now re-sequenced. I should be on-line for another hour or so tonight if that's of use.) MusicAngels (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Analysis and themes

• In interviews...Discussions in the press...Recurrent references in separate reviews in the press...In an interview of two of the co-writers with Huffington Post in November 2014....
  • Mostly unnecessary framing, context, and attribution that is best deleted. Viriditas (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Done. Removing prefatory framing for direct wording and shorten. MusicAngels (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
• This section could be moved below production, which is given more importance here. See for an example the structure of Inception. Viriditas (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. Makes sense to put it after Production section. MusicAngels (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• When the writers were asked about the meaning of the ambiguous ending they indicated that they would only comment on what it was not intended to convey. They indicated that any superficial or mediocre conclusion to the film was not a possibility for them, and that a comedic ending was completely ruled out. The writers indicated that reflections about the conclusion to the film were better directed at interpreting the effects of the plot upon the lives of the surviving characters portrayed in the film rather than with any simple minded or ready-made finishes to the plot.
  • @MusicAngels: please try to clean this up. You repeat the word "indicated" three times here, which is unnecessary. Also, it's not entirely clear what is being discussed. For example, what does "they indicated that any superficial or mediocre conclusion to the film was not a possibility for them" actually mean? If it's not important and to the point, please just remove it. I would say the same for "The writers indicated that reflections about the conclusion to the film were better directed at interpreting the effects of the plot upon the lives of the surviving characters portrayed in the film rather than with any simple minded or ready-made finishes to the plot." Both of those sentences would be best deleted as they are gobbledygook. Of course, if you can find a way to revisit the sources, capture the essence of the point, and rephrase it briefly, that would be fine. Otherwise delete. Viriditas (talk) 05:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Done. Shorten and rewrite. State the leaked information from the writer's interview which the director was refusing to comment upon. @Viriditas, on a separate note I am noticing that the page protection has about seven days left here, and it might be nice to get the most advantage out of having it for this assessment. If you would like to double up on the over-night tasks, then that's fine. MusicAngels (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• @MusicAngels: is everything that comes before citation 71 supported by this source? Please take a look. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Viriditas: Both footnotes 70 and 71 support each other, and there is no reason not to double up on the references for citation 71 to double cites 70, 71 if that looks better to readers of the article. MusicAngels (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• @MusicAngels: I don't think you understood my question. (Due to recent edits, source 71 is now 72). I don't see how all of the content preceding 72 is supported by that source. This is a problem if you want to pass GA. For example, the following content:

Many aspects of film theory were debated concerning the film by critical reviews which included, among other subjects, (a) film genre; (b) intended and unresolved ambiguities of plot; and (c) the complex interaction of Riggan's personal life with his professional life as an actor. A short list of the diverse forms of film genre associated with the film has included it being referred to alternatively as a black-humor film, a mental health film, a realism/surrealism/magical realism film, a dark-humor parody film, a film of psychological realism, a failed domestic reconciliation drama, or a film concerning theatrical realism and naturalism. Inarritu has maintained his penchant, well-known to followers of his previous films, for deliberately including multiple plot lines in this film which are intentionally left unresolved at the ending.

This content appears to be supported by this source (currently footnote 72, previously 71). Yet, most of this content is not in that source. If my spot-checking of source verification fails, then I can't pass the article. Viriditas (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Reception

• As others have already noted above, the long quote from Pejkovici is untenable. Assuming for the sake of argument that Pejkovici is a notable critic (there is no such evidence at the moment), then the content itself can be reduced to a quarter of its current size and paraphrased appropriately. Viriditas (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. Shorten long Petrovic quote from ten lines to two line quote to cover Fellini. MusicAngels (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Music and soundtrack

Resolved

 – Split has reduced the length of the parent. I recommend no further expansion of this section, but obviously it can still be improved in terms of focus and importance.

• We don't need a separate section. Please merge the most important points into the music section (which also needs summarizing) and consider splitting out a new article on the soundtrack. Viriditas (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. Section is deleted/adjusted/moved with pertinent material re-ascribed within the Disqualification section above. MusicAngels (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
    • @MusicAngels: Ideally, we only need one music section, summary style. Soundtrack content should be split out into its own article. The entire topic is at 112,822 bytes, which demands summary style, splitting out, and condensing. I fully understand the interest in subsections, writing long paragraphs, etc., but we have guidelines to help us insure readability. Aim for one single music section with no subsections as you split the soundtrack content out into a new article. To see an example of how this is done, see Jaws (film)#Music. Remove everything that doesn't look like David. Viriditas (talk) 09:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Done. I am merging the relevant material into the "Disqualification" section and updating it with only the essential details. The classical music subsection is now deleted. (I didn't quite follow the code message here: "...Doesn't look loike David"). MusicAngels (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
        • @MusicAngels: there's still a lot of work to do. Please read Wikipedia:Summary style. You should create a new article on the soundtrack so you can merge non-essential content to that subtopic. Viriditas (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
          • @Viriditas: Clarification. That was not the soundtrack listing in the sense of being the soundtrack listing of the CD as it was released. That listing given here is of the classical musical accompaniment as it appeared in the actual film for the classical music compositions which were used in the film but were Not composed by the solo drummer composer. The only reason I put this version there in the first place was to support the "Disqualification" section as it was originally written for the previous GA nomination. Sadly the actual cd Soundtrack release mostly ignored the classical music segments, and only used 3-4 of them grouped together almost as an after-thought at the end of the CD. That does not support a fuller view of the Disqualification section, which is however supported when the reader sees the complete list used by the disqualification committee (which includes many pieces which are never heard on the CD Soundtrack release.) There are two options it seems. One option could consider moving the enumeration to the Accolades section, since the disqualification has to do with the Oscar accolade for Original Music. The other option is to go with the old version of the old GA article which did not discuss the enumeration at all but only named the top two or three composers. It would be really useful to hear which direction you feel is more suitable for readers of the article. Go with the new plan of including the enumeration list, or, keep the old plan and not include the list? MusicAngels (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
            • @MusicAngels: I'm really busy with work, so I will try to be brief: don't get lost in the details. What matters here is splitting content out into a new article, and it can be about the music, the score and the soundtrack. We have articles like Vertigo (film score), and Gravity: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack as examples. Start by moving everything you've written (before you deleted any content) to a new article about the film score. Then you can pick the most important points and add them to this aricle, in one or two paragraphs. Focus on splitting out the content and summarizing here. Viriditas (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
              • Done. Music section condensed by half, adding one new cite. New version down to three short paragraphs. MusicAngels (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
                • Good, but why haven't you split out the material into a new article per the summary style guideline? Viriditas (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

INTERJECTION Sorry to interject here MusicAngels, but I agree with Viriditas. The paragraphs you cut contained information not in the current version, and extra information on a topic is fine: just move it to a different, more focused article on the subject, as per the summary style-guidelines. For instance, examine the Development section in Rhain's article on the Last of Us. Notice how there's only five paragraphs here, but if you look at the more focused article the section links to, there around thirty paragraphs, an amount far to big for the main page. At one stage I was concerned that the production section I was working on may be too detailed, (but then again, Sense and Sensibility's production section is as generous) so was going to create a new article called "Production of Birdman"; this way the main article can have a section titled "Production", with no subsections, but instead a paragraph summarizing each of the sections in the "Production of..." article. (i.e. one for the writing, rehearsal, filming, music, etc). My suggestion anyway. End of interjection. Neuroxic (talk) 04:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Consensus request. That was a pretty good INTERJECTION. @Viriditas; There are currently two versions of the new Music section, the previous one is with the subsections and the new one which you requested is without the subsections and condensed as the current form. Both @Neuroxic: and @Katastasi: have indicated that they feel that the previous version with all five paragraphs in the Music section plus subsections here [13] was well written and well referenced, and can be defended for being retained and kept as is. The examples cited by Neuroxic are the films The Last of Us and Sense and Sensibility. Both Neuroxic and Katastasi make a well-reasoned point and if we join them, then it would be a four editor consensus to retain the full five paragraph version with subsections. What do you say [14]? MusicAngels (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @MusicAngels: I would like to work towards completion of this review and hopefully, passing it. To fulfill the focused criterion, I have recommended following the summary style procedure for splitting out a new article. If you aren't familiar with how to do this or you need help, please ask. As I said before, there's no need to get lost in the details. Keep your eye on the larger picture. Viriditas (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
    • @Viriditas: Splitting out the sibling article is simple. Two other editors, one of whom is the original author, have asked you to comment on the abridgement from 5 paragraphs to 3 paragraphs, with an eye to keeping the original version, as related in my most recent comment above. Which direction is it for going forward? MusicAngels (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
      • @MusicAngels: as a reviewer, I'm going to focus only on issues directly related to resolving the GA criteria. I'm not going to spend time on minor details or disputes that involve counting paragraphs. If that issue arises after the article is split out and it is represented in summary style here, then we will cross that bridge when we come to it, but I want to avoid micromanaging as best as I can. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
        • @Viriditas: Sibling page is set up for development. There is no micromanagement here though please deal with the consulting editors above. One of them is also changing the film genre from "dark satirical drama film" which you had indicated as "Resolved". MusicAngels (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
          • @MusicAngels: give me 30 minutes to take a look, as I've got other things going on. Please read Neuroxic's comment again, as I think you may have possibly misinterpreted what he wrote. As the reviewer, I'm the one concerned about micromanagement. As the nominator, you shouldn't have to worry about it. I cannot comment too much on internecine conflict between editors, as that would impact the stability criterion. I can offer you some advice, however, as a reviewer of more than 80 articles: 1) You can try to talk directly with the editor(s) in question and attempt to resolve the dispute, or 2) you can leave the changes in the article, revert them, or modify as a compromise. As a reviewer, I don't want to fail this due to instability, so proceed cautiously. I seem to remember that in similar disputes in the past, some editors made the decision to remove any mention of the genre from the lead. I would recommend considering this option. Viriditas (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)\
            • @Viriditas: Nice of you to be on-line at this time. I think its getting late. I shall follow you on this since we have been at it for a week, and I will leave it as is for now. Let me know which section you wish me to move on to next at this time. MusicAngels (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
              • @Viriditas: After splitting, article is now 104,502 bytes, which is an improvement. I don't think the current music and soundtrack section should grow any larger than it currently is, and if additional information needs to be added, it should be added to the new article or current information in the parent topic should be removed to make way for the new information. I performed a light copyedit.[15] I think this section, in its current form and length, is good to go. I'm sure additional copyedits can further improve readability. Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
                • @Viriditas: Your last ping I think was intended for me but was mistyped, but I have it either way. Ready to move forward to next section when you are, let me know. MusicAngels (talk) 14:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Criteria

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   Lead: OK

   Plot: OK

   Cast: OK

   Production: unclear prose

   Music and soundtrack: OK

   Reception: long quote could be copyvio, but that's not the only problem

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Structure needs work

   Duplicate music and soundtrack sections not needed. Please merge, summarize, and split out if necessary

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   Spot-checking of themes section failed to find corresponding sources

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

   Article is too long and fails to use summary style appropriately

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Previous (ongoing) genre dispute noted

   Resolved

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   The article is unstable and recent edits attempting to fix problems have been reverted. Could be quick failed, but I'm going to take a closer look. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I'm failing the review for many reasons, least of all because the nominator can no longer participate. This article was never ready to be renominated after its last delisting. Problems vary from prose to source integrity issues (all listed above). Many of the key sources on this topic, including Film Journal International, Time, Film Comment, Cineaste, and Sight & Sound, to name just a few, aren't even in the article. This tells me that a lot of the key research was never done. I recommend rewriting the entire article, starting with production. The themes and reception section has no narrative continuity and reads as if monkeys randomly placed things here and there (and I did not help that matter by moving a paragraph from reception to themes, so I apologize). I recommend that the lead editor(s) make good use of reference management software to painstakingly check and double-check the source-text integrity. Viriditas (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)