Talk:Jaws (film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  Do I take it that "Scheinberg", mentioned twice under Box office performance is a typo for "Spielberg", and not some studio exec whose first name is never mentioned...?  Done

  Heh, so it was the second possibility after all (a studio exec whose first name hadn't been mentioned)! That's great, can I just confirm then that in the first sentence of the section, "Jaws was the first film to use Spielberg's scheme of "wide release" as a distribution pattern...", we really mean Spielberg and not Scheinberg? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

  Okay, I've seen your "non-attibutive" solution to the above query and it works fine for me! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

  "Despite the rare footage of a great white shark exhibiting violent behavior, only a handful of these shots were used in the finished film." -- this sentence should be cited.  Done [removed sentence]

  Releases and sequels -- there's no citation for the first para, or the last part of the second  Done

  Adaptations -- no citation for this subsection.  Done [removed sentence where a citation was not found]

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  You say that Zanuck and Brown "heard about Peter Benchley's novel at the same time at different locations", and then give some detail about the latter's discovery of it but nothing more about the former. Seems a bit unbalanced -- is there nothing about just how Zanuck heard of it?

  "The film makers removed the novel's adulterous affair..." -- since we've just mentioned the director in the previous sentence, can we be more specific about who "the film makers" are? Zanuck and Brown, or Zanuck, Brown and Spielberg, or who?  Done

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  Overall this is fine -- it reads nicely and is generally well cited and illustrated. If you can just address the points above it should pass quite easily. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I think that the only remaining issue is about Zanuck and Brown hearing about the novel. I researched the article for the novel and did not come across any RSs for Zanuck's side. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No prob, it was one of my favourite films as a kid -- I first saw it while on holiday by the beach...! Look, don't worry about the Zanuck side, if it can't be reliably sourced then better to leave as is. Pls just clarify my latest query above and then I'll be happy to pass this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Happy now -- passed and well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)