Talk:Chimes at Midnight/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Daniel Case (talk · contribs) 05:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the oldest unreviewed nom; I'm doing this because I just nominated Independence Pass (Colorado). Fortunately I have actually seen this film; unfortunately that was only once, and years ago.

I am printing it out to go through it with a red pen first. Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Its on youtube in decent quality if you wanted to watch it as well.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, before I go into detail, I'm going to start a copy edit (not right now; my time is short). For comments about that, read the edit summaries. Daniel Case (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you very much and no rush at all. The only thing is that "the betrayal of friendship" was the way that Welles put it and it has a slightly different meaning than "friendship and betrayal". Obviously its just the lead and not the body of the text, but just a clarification. --Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that's how Welles put it, it should be in quotes. Otherwise it's very tempting to edit because it's such unusual phrasing. Daniel Case (talk) 07:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now that I'm done with the copy edit ...

I'm putting the article on hold because of some things I think are fixable within a reasonable length of time. I am astounded that no one looked at it during peer review ... it's not your fault, but if you were thoughtful enough to have submitted it for PR you should have found a way to keep it listed until someone actually did review it. Many of the issues that led to this hold could have been addressed that way. I note it's still considered C-Class; if nothing else PR should have gotten it up to B to give it a better chance here.

It is perhaps too ironic that the main issue I had with an article about a film about Falstaff is that it's, well, bloated. On the plus side that reflects what seems to have been a very thorough research effort, which is good in that the necessary improvements to the article are subtractive rather than additive, which is technically easier (although, as William Faulkner once more or less admitted, emotionally difficult sometimes).

So ... what needs to be cut?

Well, for starters look at the prose. I took care of a lot of redundant phrasing during the copy edit (for instance, when the reader has already been informed that the movie is being filmed in Spain, it is unnecessary to have ", Spain" after every filming location. However, there may be things I missed. There are certainly a lot of missing apostrophes, for one thing. The paragraphs are still rather long, enough so as to be a daunting prospect for a reader. I would commend your attention, especially, to the page on summary style and re-evaluate whether you need

But at a structural level I'd really take a long look at whether the sections on Five Kings and Welles' views on Falstaff need to be as long as they are. What you have on the stage performances could be the seed of a separate article. What we should see here is a discussion of them to the extent that they're relevant to the film. We don't need a whole list of the stage cast if only one of them wound up being in the movie. We don't need a blow-by-blow on its poor box office in two cities. We can just say it didn't do well (and, okay, I'd keep that detail about it turning into more or less An Evening With Orson Welles because it's amusing and does bring home the point about the production's desperation.

As for Welles' views on Falstaff, that's fascinating, but after the first graf and a half where it's discussed within the context of the film it becomes irrelevant to this article. An interesting tidbit you might want to add, though, would be Danny Peary's speculation, in at least one of his Cult Movies books, or at the very least Guide for the Film Fanatic, that Welles might be allegorizing his relationship with some unspecified younger director he mentored before that person was famous, only to have that person totally disown him when he did (that was certainly plausible in the Hollywood of that time, where Welles was regarded as a washed-up has-been).

In lesser structural issues:

I'd also want to put that bit about Welles' chicanery regarding the never-made Treasure Island film in the intro, as it's relevant to the legal entanglements.

The graf about how critics received the battle scenes that's currently in "Cinematography" should really go to Reception, where it can be combined with some existing discussion of that same subject. Along with Pauline Kael's sentence on that sequence.

Alright. I think I will give you a couple of weeks to address this. Once you have, let me know on my talk page (and I'll respond here). Daniel Case (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll start working on this this weekend. Not so sure about the allegory of a younger director, since that sounds like Peter Bogdanovich who Welles did not know until after making this film. I don't agree about it being bloated in the sense that the previous stage versions were directly related and Welles himself said that it was one of his most personal films. But yes a lot of detail could be cut down. Also, if it is still C status could you be more specific as so other aspects of the five requirements. Would you pass it in terms of Accuracy, being Broad, Neutrality, Stability and Images? --Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it doesn't have to be accurate, just speculation by someone notable that we could cite. As far as the other aspects, if there were problems there I would have said so. So they're good. Daniel Case (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have so far been unable to to find any Danny Peary quotes related to the article, and most of what I've found has been in blog form. One thing about the Cinematography section is that the quotes are from essays and articles that are not traditional film reviews, and two of them are Shakespearean scholars and not film critics. Currently the plot summary is 789 words. I've cut a lot out put just wanted your input before taking off the tag. Overall just wanted your two cents on the current version. --Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK ... looks good now. The Peary thing was just a suggestion, not a requirement, although it would be good to continue looking for. I'm passing this. Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you so much for all your help and for passing it. --Deoliveirafan (talk) 03:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]