Talk:Get Carter/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 23:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC) I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am a slow reviewer, so if there is a desire to have the review done soon, then let me know and I'll withdraw now. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements rather than make long lists, though sometimes I will make a general comment, especially if there is a lot of work needed. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Closed as not listed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

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

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

Pass

• Stable. No edit wars. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• There's an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Prose is clear, readable and informative. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Major aspects. Article has plenty of information and meets GA criteria for broad coverage. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• NPOV. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Query

• Images. There are five location images. Are all five needed? The stairwell image is questionable as we already have one of the car park. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• In Plot - "He is attacked by the and Eric.." there is a word missing. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Also in Plot, why are some people referred to by surname, and others by first name? Is it possible to be consistent? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• In the lead: "For this reason, although the film is perceived as inherently British by fans and critics, it is perhaps more accurately described as an Anglo-American production." This is a speculative viewpoint which is unsourced, and details are not found in the main body. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• The Reception section mixes material on the contemporary responses with the film's legacy and current reputation. It would be useful to separate them into two clear sub-sections. Per WP:Lead, some indication of the film's current status should appear in the opening sentences rather than be only at the end of quite a lengthy lead. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Focus. Article may be too detailed. The overall length is not an issue, it is the amount of information the reader needs to absorb in order to get at the important details - for example, is all this needed: Locations had been scouted by Hodges and Klinger in the spring of 1970, working up the east coast of England through East Riding of Yorkshire and County Durham to Tyne and Wear. Hodges said "It was important that Jack Carter came from a hard, deprived background, a place he never wanted to go back to."[40] He initially had the idea of using Hull as the setting, as he had memories of the derelict fishing ports he had visited during his National Service in the Royal Navy's Fishery Protection Fleet. However when he returned the sites he had in mind had been redeveloped and were unsuitable as the grimy, dilapidated backdrop he was seeking.[35] Moving up the East coast, the only place that had not been redeveloped was Newcastle. Hodges remembered his first sighting of Newcastle: "The visual drama [of Newcastle] took my breath away. Seeing the great bridges crossing The Tyne, the waterfront, the terraced houses stepped up each side of the deep valley. We'd got there in time. But only just." in order to tell the reader that "Locations had been scouted by Hodges and Klinger in the spring of 1970, along the east coast of England, to find a landscape that suggested a "hard, deprived background",[40] and Newcastle was selected after Hodge's first choice of Hull proved to be unsuitable.[35][40]"? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Fail

• A number of the images have captions which are too long, per WP:Captions. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}
• Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}
• Sources and OR. There are a range of good quality sources, and material in the article is supported by the sources. If there is uncertainty (as regards the budget), this is stated. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I like the Cast section as it very informative. Though it appears to be well sourced, looking again there are some statements which could have closer inline cites, and I have marked them. The section is very detailed, and this seems to be true of much of the article. I am wondering if there is too much information. The article does seem quite bloated, and that makes it difficult to get a quick, easy grip on the film. There is always a judgement call to be made on how much detail to include, and I am inclining to the view that this article may have a bit too much. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

General comments

• I haven't looked closely as this is outside the GA criteria, but do all the external links meet WP:EL? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the review SilkTork. You make a lot of interesting points as well as confronting some issues I'd been unsure of myself. I'll clean up some of these soon. Not sure about the location photos, they are all there to be used on wiki commons and it seemed a shame not to. I agree it makes the whole thing look slightly top heavy. Would it be possible to have a gallery of all these photos at the bottom instead?

Regarding *In the lead: "For this reason, although the film is perceived as inherently British by fans and critics, it is perhaps more accurately described as an Anglo-American production." This is a speculative viewpoint which is unsourced, and details are not found in the main body.

I can see it is maybe at present unsuitable in its tone for the lead. However this is not I believe purely speculative content, given the fact that it is stated in the article that the production was a collaboration between EMI and MGM, the film was US financed, but it is never referred to as an American film, and is ranked in lists of best British films. I can see I need to clarify this, maybe in the Production section. But I'll remove it from the lead for now.

Out of interest, which sections do you think are not represented in the lead, or could do with more mention?

When you say "some indication of the film's current status", do you mean its critical status? How it is viewed by audiences? I would say it's viewed as a seminal British gangster film, and a document of 70s Northern life. I intended to add a section on critical reappraisal in the 90s which I think is important as regards this film.

Please carry on as I'm interested to see what your final verdict will be.Kaleeyed (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, this dropped off my radar for a bit as neither this nor the article have been popping up on my watchlist. I didn't even remembered that I hadn't finished the review! I have a bit of time today so I hope to get this finished. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

On hold

This is a very detailed, informative and interesting article on a key British film that has gathered increasing critical attention over the years, and is now largely regarded as one of the greatest British films ever made. A rich and complex film, the article does manage to convey much of that richness, though at times the temptation to include interesting information has lead to a loss of focus, and as such detail is lost in the mass of information. In such a rich and complex film there will always be more information to include - the sniper sitting opposite Carter on the train journey up, Carter never firing the shotgun, etc, and some editorial judgement needs to be made as to what to exclude as much as what to include. The main areas to work on, are to tidy up the lead, to trim back some of the detail, and to deal with the images and long captions. There are also some statements which need inline cites.

The standard hold is seven days, though as long as progress is being made I tend to extend that within reason. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I just started doing some clean up work, but I think there is more work than I can do in a reasonable time, so I will close this in two days if there is no further work done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Close as not listed

No work has been done, and there's too much for me to do by myself, so I'm closing this as not listed. Once the issues above have been addressed the article can be nominated again. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)