Talk:Ben-Hur (1959 film)/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer:

Krimuk90 (talk · contribs) 15:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Well-spotted haha! Thanks for taking on the review! Look forward to seeing your comments :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • I spot several instances when the name of the film has not been italicized.
Well-spotted!
  • Would be good to wikilink 'widescreen' for those unfamiliar with aspect ratios.
Done.
  • The score was influential 'for more than 15 years'? This kind of gives an impression that it isn't influential today.
It isn't really. That sort of film score you don't really see anymore. Things changed in the 1980s.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.
  • The fact that the marketing budget has been mentioned, the production cost should also be mentioned.
Added.
  • Due to the massive size of the article, I understand that it is impossible to summarize its key contents, but I feel that some more information on its production should be mentioned here, especially because there is so much information in the body.
I don't agree, if anything I thought I'd overcooked the production info. What's really needed is condensing the article as you mention below! I suppose another sentence or two wouldn't hurt though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yup! --
KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Plot
  • Surely this section can be trimmed a bit to keep it under 700 words.
I'm not sure I agree on that, given the length of the film. I think it summarises it pretty well and doesn't look too long for such a film at all. I will try to trim if I can though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Production
  • The first line doesn't mention which film it is a remake of!
Added
  • "Best Picture-nominated". Best Picture at what ceremony? Wikilinks please.
Can't find this, what part is this in?
"Zimbalist was chosen because he had produced MGM's Best Picture-nominated Christians-and-lions epic Quo Vadis in 1951." --
KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Any reason why this paragraph is not under the development sub-section?
Because it's at least half part of the overview really, the filming is mentioned again in a lower section. Don't worry I should be able to sort that out when I condense it.
Development
  • "Lew Wallace's novel ran to about 550 pages." Which novel? There is no previous mention of it.
Yeah it was linked in lead not in main section! Done.
  • ".. who had been one of 30 Assistant Directors on the 1925 film". Please correct this sentence.
You mean capitalization? Lower casing now.
  • "It lacked good characterization, the dramatic structure was poor, and the leads were uninteresting (just "villains and heroes")". I think this was Wyler's point-of-view. Why not merge with the previous sentence?
  • "..that he wished to "out DeMille DeMille". Repeated word.
Duh!
Writing
  • The note should be before the ref here: "..reported in June 1957 that Anderson was at work on the script.[30][c][36]"
Done.
  • "preproduction". Hyphen missing.
Done.
  • No in-line citation for "Vidal further claimed that Wyler took his advice."
I'll remove that in the cutting.
Casting
  • "Largely speaking". Not a very encyclopaedic phrase. Please re-word.
Agreed, changed to Wyler typically.
  • "The exotically beautiful Israeli actress..". Falls under
    WP:PEACOCK
Quite right!
  • "Both Zimbalist and Wyler were excited about her looks and acting" Is this necessary to include?
Removed.
Cinematography
  • "..who had filmed many of the most successful epics of the 1950s". Can be toned down a bit, maybe replace "many of the most" by "several".

I don't think the tone is overcooked here. It is true that he worked on the most successful epics, it's not like I say greatest. Agreed on several of though.

  • The last sentence of this section is jarring due to it's placement.
I think I'll remove that during the cutting, agreed.
Principal photography
  • Too much info on The Big Country in the opening paragraph, can be trimmed to one sentence.
Will trim during the cutting.
Production design
  • "the largest Cinecittà soundstage was not used for filming at all, but rather converted into a vast costume warehouse." Why "at all"?
  • ".. manufacturing the wardrobe a year before the cameras rolled." Please re-word.
  • "One of the most sumptuous sets". Why that description?
  • "Among them were the Countess Nona Medici, Count Marigliano del Monte, Count Mario Rivoltella, Prince Emanuele Ruspoli and Prince Raimondo Ruspoli of Italy, the Princess Carmen de Hohenlohe, Prince Cristian Hohenlohe and Count Santiago Oneto of Spain, Baroness Lillian de Balzo of Hungary, and Princess Irina Wassilchikoff (Russia)". Are they notable enough to be individually mentioned?
Editing
  • "All told, there were 1,100,000 feet (340,000 m) of film shot". Very informal start.
Reworded and moved down a bit.
Chariot race sequence
  • I suggest that you should start a new article for this section, provide a brief summary and merge it with the previous section. Due to the article's length, it deserves a bit of trimming.
I think it can go in the article
Production of Ben-Hur
. Will trim.
Release
  • This section is well-written.
  • "Years later, the film went to cable, and now turns up fairly regularly on Turner Classic Movies." No citation provided.
I don't think any citation would aptly support it, it just does!
Hmm.--
KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I say that because it would require a TV guide and countless citations to prove it which would be pretty pointless. this source says once scene is frequently cited but it doesn't say the film appears on Turner countless times.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence of the "Broadcast and home video releases" sub-section is also unsourced.
Added ref.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have to say that the article is gigantic. I really feel that the 'writing' and 'production design' sections can be trimmed. If not, there is no harm in starting a new article on it's production. I have written this above, and I repeat that the "Chariot race sequence" section definitely deserves a new article. Also, Blofeld, other than the comments that I have mentioned above, the prose tends to be quite excessive and informal at times, and it needs a nice, long look from you. I am sure that when you read through, you will realise that you can trim out some excess info. It's impossible for me to list all such instances, due to the sheer size of the article, and I will place this on hold with the good faith that you can help improve it. --

KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks for the review. Yeah I think you're right that it would be best to split production and then condense. My feeling though was that for GA length wasn't a major concern and that if at some point it was going for FA then it would be seriously cut. May take a few days responding to this. @Tim1965: on this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed most of your points and spent the last few hours trimming down to just below 100kb and removing some of the less encyclopedic words and phrases. It could still be more polished of course but I think it's adequate for GA.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very well done Blofeld. That was fabulous work in such little time. I have made some other minor changes myself, and this version definitely meets the GA-criteria. Of course, with some further tweaks it will be ready for FA, and the film deserves it! Happy to pass.

WP:WIAGA
for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  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: --
    KRIMUK90 ✉ 16:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Thanks Krimuk, and that was a great and much needed review which has considerably improved it since earlier!! The prose could still use a polish in parts but the article should be OK for GA now. Further copyedits by anybody are welcome of course! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ben-Hur_(1959_film)/GA2&oldid=600175615"